Skip to main content

Full text of "THE EMPIRE OF "The City""

See other formats


•^-- - /I ' 

i .V'l" " 




"The City" 

(World Superstate) 

The Five Ideologies of 
Spabe and Power 

1. "One World" Ideology 

2. "Pan-Slavic" Ideology 

3. "Asia for the Asiatics" 

4. Pan-Germanism 

5. Pan-American Isolationism 

The 130 Years of Power Politics 
of the Modern Era 

"I know of no way of judging of the future 
but by the past." 

—Patrick Henry 

1983 edition published by 

Printed in the U.S. A. 

Copyright 1048, by 

E. C. Knuth 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

Previous Edition, Copyrighted May 22.1044 

Chapter XI. Copyrighted Feb. 22. 1945 


I wish to thank the following publishes for their courtesy in granting me 
permission to quote from these books: 

America's Strategy in World 

Background of War 

Barriers Down 

The Case for India 

The Day of the Saxon 

From Isolation to Leadership 

The Intimate Papers of 
Colonel House 

Liberty-Equality -Fraternity 

The-Life of W. E. Gladstone 

Lord Keynes, Closeup of 

Merchants of Death 

My Memories of Eighty Years 

Old Diplomacy and New 



"Shall It Be Again?" 

The United States and 
Great Britain 

Prof. Nicholas J. Spykman 

Editors of Fortune 

Kent Cooper 

Dr. Will Durant 

Homer Lea 

Prof. John H. Latane 

Prof. Chas. Seymour 

Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler 

John Morley 

Noel F. Busch 

H. C. Engelbrecht & 
F. C. Hanighen 

Chauncey M. Depew 

A. L. Kennedy 

Prof. Roland G. Usher 

Prof. Roland G. Usher 

John K. Turner 

Rear Admiral Chas. L. 

The War and Democracy J. Dover Wilson 

Harcourt, Brace and Co., Inc. 
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 
Farrar & Binehart 
Simon &, Schuster, Inc. 
Harper &, Brothers 
The Odyssey Press, Inc. 

Houghton M ifflin Company 
Chas. ScribnerVSons 
The MacMillan Co. 
Time, Inc., 1945 

Dodd, Mead &, Company 

Chas. Scribner's Sons 

D. Appleton-Century Co. 

D. Appleton-Century Co. 

Houghton Mifflin Company 

The Author 

The University cf Chicago 

The MacMillan Co. 


Member Wisconsin Society of Professional Engineers 

Member National Society of Professional Engineers 
Member Western Society of Engineers 


At the end of World War I, the writer, then 27 years old, was released 
from the U. S. Army as a second lieutenant of the Coast Artillery Corps. 
Like many more servicemen, he was filled with resentment as the deluge of 
utterly obvious and brazen falsehood, by which participation in that war 
had been forced upon the American people, was exposed, and became more 
evident day by day after the war was won. 

That the reasons advanced to the American people for their entry into 
World War I were largely fraudulent became common and accepted knowledge, 
and over 25 years after the end of that war the eminent American historians, 
Charles A and Mary R. Beard, stated in their "Basic History" (page 442) 
that "the gleaming mirage that pictured the World War as purely or even 
mainly a war for democracy and civilization dissolved beyond recognition. . . ;" 
and the well-known Internationalist publicist, Walter Lippmann, stated in 
his "U. S. Foreign Policy" (page 24) in effect that the real reasons for going 
to war in 1917 have never been admitted. 

Many people realize that this mystifying situation, in which an alleged 
democratic and self-governing nation is actually controlled against the will 
of the people in its foreign affairs, is a clear indication that there must be a 
very powerful and well-financed secret organization which plans and directs 
American foreign affairs, and for lack of a more specific identification this 
suspected secret organization is popularly referred to as the International 

When the propaganda mills began their characteristic grind towards 
war in the early 1930's, the writer began a more definite study of international 
power politics, and soon found it an entrancing and revealing subject. There 
was, however, no more free speech; and the most amazing documented aspects 
of a vast secret world order of International Finance could find no hearing 
in a situation where some Congressmen denounced overwhelming Nationalist 
expression of views in their mail as mere organized subversion. 

The shelves of our public libraries hold thousands of books pertaining 
to some aspect of this vast subject; most of them dry as dust to the average 
reader and remaining unread by the public through the years. Most of these 
scholarly works are devoted to some passing phase of power politics in some 
part cf the world, of which their author has made a specialized study, and 
have invariably been forgotten as the public has lost interest in that particular 

In running through these works some amazing nuggets of information 
come to light here and there, which fitted together gradually unfold the stun- 

ning history and the legal structure of a sovereign world state located in the 
financial district of the loosely knit aggregation of buroughs and cities popu- 
larly known as the city of London. The colossal political and financial organi- 
zation centered in this area, known aa "The City," operates as a super- 
government of the world; and no incident occurs in any part of the world 
without its participation in some form. 

Its pretentions are supported in the United States by the secret Inter- 
national Pilgrim Society, sponsor of the Cecil Rhodes "One World" ideology 
which waa launched about 1897. The president of its American branch Is 
Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, who is also president of the allied Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace. The ultimate objective of this camarilla 
waa defined by one of its noted propagandists, the late William Allen White, 
as: "It is the destiny of the pure Aryan Anglo-Saxon race to dominate the 
world and kill off or else reduce to a servile status all other inferior races." 

After reducing the vast mass of data forming the basis of this work into 
a logical and readable sequence, it was finally put into print and privately 
published after long delay, and copyright waa granted May 22, 1944. About 
200 copies were sent to various members of Congress, thus largely performing 
the purpose of the first edition. [Several members of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee accorded some attention to this. 

Senator Henrik Shipstead of Minnesota wrote August 12, 1944: "The 
document containing the result of your research waa so interesting that it 
spoiled most of my sleep that night ... I have been doing some research 
along the same lines and I find my time in that respect is limited. You have 
done a great deal of work that will save me a great deal of time." On August 
21, 1944, he wrote: "People ought to be induced to read it. 1 1 is a documented 
piece of work and therefore should command respect and arouse interest." 

This work apparently appeals moat strongly to men of professional 
standing, and to people of the elder generations, and a number of lawyers, 
doctors, clergymen, architects and engineers of the writer's acquaintance 
have expressed their great interest and apparently general commendation. 
Publishers approached have been reluctant to undertake it, and several stated 
that there would be little demand for a serious work of this kind, as the 
American public is not interested in that kind of reading matter. One large 
Eastern publisher frankly wrote he was obliged to disregard the recom- 
mendations of his readers on advice of counsel. 

Chapters I and XI, and the Conclusion, are new additions to the second 
edition of "The Empire of The City'." Chapter XI, "A Study in Power," 
was published separately and copyrighted February 22, 1945. 

Table cf Contents 

Introduction 5 

I. The Fundamental Basis of Internationalism 7 

IL Geopolitics and the Background cf Modern Wars 11 

III. The Eastern Question 17 

IV. The Concert of Europe 23 

V. The European Concert Ends in the East 26 

VI. The New Order of Freedom 31 

VII. The New Order Ends in the East 43 

VIII. The Liberals Against the Conservatives and War 50 

IX. The Money Power in Power Politics .-. . . 59 

X. The Secret Sixth Great Power 67 

XL A Study in Power 72 

XII. The Problems of The Peace 79 

XIII. The Fv r e Ideologies of Space and Power 86 

XIV. Conclusion 98 

Index 106 


In 1912, the noted internationalist, Homer Lea, in a scientific study of 
basic elements of world politics, forecast as imminent and inevitable a series 
of gigantic world conflicts, of which World War I, World War II, and a now 
almost certain and nearby World War III, form a part. 

Mr. Lea's great work, "The Day of The Saxon," was first published in 
1912 in very limited edition, and was republished in 1942 by Harper & 
Brothers. It can be said to form a major book of the Internationlist "Bible," 
and is one of the very few works on Internationalism that treats this usually 
deliberately distorted subject with scholarly candor, being particularly de- 
signed for the enlightenment of the elect. The following paragraphs are 
selected from Chapter II of this book: 

"The character of the British Dominion is different from any of the 
great empires that have preceded it. It not only consists of one-fourth of the 
land surface, but the suzerainty of the Five Seas. . . . That British rule should, 
in various degrees of sovereignty exercise its dominion over eeventeen- 
twentieths of the world's surface is significant of just that degree of repression 
towards all other nations, their rights and expansion by land or by sea. 

"Peace and its duration, like war, is determined by natural laws that in 
their fundamental principles do not vary nor are found wanting. 

"In conformity to these laws we find that the future peace of the Empire 
stands in decreasing ratio and must so continue until it is either destroyed 
or reaches a point of world dominance. 

"There can be no retention of present British sovereignty without the 
repression of the territorial and political expansion of other nations — a con- 
dition that must culminate in war, one war if the Empire is destroyed; a series 
ij it is victorious. 

"In this epoch of war upon which the Empire is about to enter, hopes 
of peace are futile; constitutions and kings and gods are without avail, for 
these are the old, old struggles that govern the growth and dissolution of 
national life." 

This was written before the outbreak of World War I and should in the 
light of world events since then be very impressive. Mr. Lea states further 


in Chapter X: "For England to preserve to herself the balance of power in 
Europe, if is necessary to limit the political and territorial expansion d any 
European state." 

On page 1 3 of the first edition of "The Empire of Th e City' ", privately 
published and copyrighted 1% years before V-E Day, the writer predicted 
the coming war with Russia on the basis of the well-defined and unmistakable 
thread of continuity and the plainly evident pattern of the machinations of 
the Balance of Power by the secret British "One World" order over the past 

The grand plan of the "One World" Order decrees that it is necessary to 
lint the political and territorial expansion d Russia PROMPTLY AND 
PEREMPTORILY. Otherwise the victory over Germany will be of no avail, 
will in fact substitute a far more dangerous and potent challenge to British 

It was further predicted that Turkey will resume her traditional position 
as the spearhead in the renewal of the timeless and savage British-Russiau 
struggle for domination, briefly interrupted since 1912 to eliminate the newly 
arisen Overman Empire and its threat to the victor. It seems likely that the 
corning conflict will find Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Bohemia, 
Poland, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Servia, Greece, Turkey and Persia allied 
with the alleged forces of freedom. 

Geopolitics, the study of the struggle for space and power, forms a well- 
developed science with an extensive bibliography, which conclusively im- 
peaches the superficial fabrication, with which the American people in 
particular have been implanted with consummate cunning, that the great 
World Wars are caused by brutal attacks upon world law and order, instead 
of being the fully anticipated consequences of the most diabolical double 
dealing and planning by the secret "One World" order cf "The City." 

The probability of war with Russia, now highly evident and the subject 
of wide comment, was variously indicated and denounced as vicious and sub- 
versive propaganda at the time the 1st edition of this book went into print. 
As is usual, the real reasons for this very probable and nearby war are easily 
kept submerged because the truculence, insolence and contempt with which 
Russia haa forestalled and checkmated the "One World" designs, with which 
she haa had an intimate acquaintance over 130 years, fits perfectly into the \ 

sham posture of bruised democracy and violated decency. i 

In Chapter III of "The Prince," his great classic on the science of power, ' 

Machiavelli warns: ". . . the distempers of a State being discovered while 
yet inchoate (in their early stages), which can only be done by a sagacious 
ruler, may easily be dealt with; but when, from not being observed, they are t 

suffered to grow until they are obvious to every one, there is no longer any 

Is there perhaps yet time for the Congress, ruler in this sense of the 
United States, to acquire the sagacity and the courage to deal with this 
menace of war with Russia? Is it in the public interest to expose the grand 
plan of the "One World" camarilla at a time when they are so near to final 
achievement of this plan that they need to sacrifice perhaps only ten to twenty 
million more lives in addition to the over one hundred million lives already 
sacrificed; to realize the great dream of their founder, Cecil Rhodes; a dream 
of a world ruled by a benevolent despotic intelligentsia, and so to create 
"peace for all eternity '? 

The answer appears in the creed of America as defined by Thomas 
Jefferson "here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor 
to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." 

How has it been possible to erect this Internationalistic structure of mis- 
representation and deception in our midst and to protect it from exposure 
for nearly a half-century? Why have not our professors of history, our 
college presidents and educators, or our crusading newspapers exposed this 

Some of the reasons are developed in the following chapters in docu- 
mented detail. But there are also some evident and very practical reasons. 
Our newspapers are absolutely dependent for their existence on the advertis- 
ing of great business interests, and perhaps the principle Auction of college 
presidents is to collect the funds upon which the existence of their institution 
depends, to be on the right terms with the right people. 

News that definitely points to the existence of the secret world super- 
government of "The City" is treated with dense silence. The current activities 
of what has been identified as the most powerful international society on 
earth, the "Pilgrims," are so wrapped in silence that few Americana know 
even of its existence since 1903. As a glaring example let US consider the 
cross-examination of Henry Morgenthau, Jr. as to the contacts of his father 
with the pecular activities of the mysterious and secret British statesman 
Viscount Reginald Esher by Senator Gerald Nye in a Senate hearing on 
January 28, 1940. Apparently not one newspaper in the United States gave 
one inch of space to this immensely sensational exposure, while Senator Nye, 
like many other statesmen who have ventured too far into forbidden realms, 
has been effectively submerged. 

As appears hereinafter, the late President David Jordan of Stanford 
University did much to expose the machinations of this' International cama- 
rilla, with the result that he was subjected to indignity and persecution during 

the World War I period; as was also the late Congressman Lindbergh cf 
Minnesota, father of Colonel Charles Lindbergh. 

As may be evident from the numerous quotations herein, many of the 
great teachers and professors of our universities have tried to throw some light 
into this situation with little success, for their works have been accorded little 
recognition, and as "controversial" matter have been treated with the con- 
tempt of silence. One source estimates the average circulation of books of 
this type at little over seven thousand copies. 

Contrast this with the massive million copy circulations of the highly 
acclaimed and widely publicized products of the proponents of International- 
ism: with the complete domination of the radio by Internationalist propa- 
gandists; with billion dollar funds out of the public treasury devoted to 
educating and informing the people; with the newspapers filled with matter 
supplied by foreign "information" services; with opposition controlled so as 
to be based on such superficial and spurious reasons as to merely help hide 
and detract attention from the real reasons. 

The Republican Party reached such a high status in the Coolidge Admis- 
tration as the defender of Nationalism that Mr. Coolidge has been accused 
in some Internationalist circles of being directly responsible for the Inter- 
nationalist recession which opened the way for the rebirth of Nationalism in 
the Totalitarian countries, among which Russia must be included. However, 
this Republican Nationalism has declined steadily under the encroachment 
of the Internationalist Money Power, so that charges of manipulation and 
bribery veiE brought after the 1940 campaign; while the candidate of 1944 
was the admitted pupil of a noted Internationalist and trustee of the Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace. The results of the 35 years of operation 
of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace speak for themselves. 

A resolution by Senator Langer, Republican Senator from North Dakota, 
to investigate the charge of C. Nelson Sparkes in ('One Man — Wendell Willkie" 
that Mr. T. J. Lamont, former president of J. P. Morgan & Co. and chairman 
of the executive committee of the Pilgrims had bought the votes of delegates 
to the Republican National Convention of 1940 with a "roomful of money," 
was effectively submerged without any adequate public explanation. 

After this brief review of recent manifestations of the parasite of foreign 
finance which has intertwined itself into the vitals of the capitalistic system, 
and which like the "Old Man of the Sea," has seated itself on the shoulders 
of democracy to dominate its fate, we will now turn back the pages of time 
130 years to trace the development and the machinations and the structure 
of this octopus of power in documented step by step historical detail, as 
revealed by eminent scholars and writers through the years. 


The events of the past ten years have brought forth a great number of 
books treating some aspect of Geopolitics, defined by one writer as the 
struggle for space and power. Among the hundreds of new works on this 
subject perhaps the most outstanding is "America's Strategy in World 
Politics," by Nicholas J. Spykrnan, Sterling Professor of International 
Relations, Yale University, published in 1942, and sponsored by The Yale 
Institute of International Studies. Like most books on this subject, Prof. 
Spykman's excellent work is very profound and comprehensive, and cannot 
be readily grasped by anybody not already acquainted with the outline of 
modern history and of modern power politics. 

The modern era of world history can definitely be assumed to have had 
its inception with the end of the Napoleonic War because many of the problems 
now affecting the nations of Europe and the world in general arose out of 
the reconstruction of the map of the world as a result of that war. The 
virtual end of the Napoleonic War came with the crushing defeat of Napoleon 
at Leipsic in the gigantic "Battle of The Nations" in October, 1813, by the 
allied Russian, Austrian, Swedish and Prussian armies, followed by the 
abdication of Napoleon and his banishment to Elba in April, 1814. 

Prof. Spykman describes the British policies in foreign affairs, which he 
alleges have earned her the designation of "Perfidious Albion," in his treat- 
ment of "Britain and the Balance of Power" (pages 103 to 107). He develops 
the British policy as a constant succession of cycles of shift partners, isolation, 
alliance and war; and the defeat of Napoleon marked the end of one of these 
cycles. A tabulation of the modern wars of the world which follows im- 
mediately herein, and which assumes the Napoleonic War as modern cyclical 
war No. 1, would indicate the present war as cyclical war No. 7, and very 
possibly as cyclical war No. 1 of a new grand cycle. 

In his "Conclusion" (pages 446-472), Prof. Spykman ventures the 
opinion that Britain cannot permit a complete German defeat as that would 
leave the European continent in the grip of Russia; and that she cannot 
permit a full Japanese defeat as that would leave Asia in the grip of an 
awakened and revitalized China. He is further very doubtful of a complete 
world hegemony by some type of British-American union, and concludee 


that only Japan would be able to supply the missing weight. Thus, strangely, 
Prof. Spykman would restore the overwhelming power of the alliance of the 
imperialistic expansion of 1897-1920, when Europe was in balance by the 
British alliance with France, Asia was in balance by the British alliance with 
Japan, and the world was in balance by the British alliance with the United 
States under the secret agreement of 1897. 

One of the most forthright revelations, both of the secret agreement of 
1897 and of the malignant disease which underlies modem civilization, and 
which threatens to tumble the world back into chaos and barbarism, was 
disclosed in a speech by Chauncey M. Depew, New York Senator and high 
political and financial power of his day, in seconding the nomination of 
Theodore Roosevelt for the Vice-Presidency of the United States at the 
Republican National Convention of 1900, when he stated in part: "What is 
the tendency of the future? Why this war in South Africa? Why this hammer- 
ing at the gates of Pekin? Why this marching of troops from Asia to Africa? 
Why these parades of people from other empires to other lands? It is because 
the surplus productions of the civilized countries of modem times are greater 
than civilization can consume. It is because this overproduction goes back 
to stagnation and poverty. The American people now produce two thousand 
million dollars' worth more than we can consume, and we have met the 
emergency; and by the providence of God, by the statesmanship of William 
McKinley, and by the valor of Roosevelt and his associates, we have our 
market in the Philippines, and we stand in the presence of eight hundred 
millions of people, with the Pacific as an American lake . . ." 

I n the following tabulation the modem cyclical wars of the British Em- 
pire in its unceasing struggle to maintain control of the dynamic and rapidly 
shifting balance of world power are numbered in order, while the intermediate 
cyclical or pivotal wars are indicated by the letter 0, and the wars of im- 
perialistic expansion by the letter X: 

Cyclical ivars and 
Imperialistic wars 

Major Powers allied 
vrith British Empire 

Major British 

No. 1 —Napoleonic War 

2 -Turkish War 

3 — Crimean Ifer 

O— Civil War 

O — Franco-Prussian 


4 — Russian-Turkish 

X— Egyptian War 


England, Prussia, Sweden, 

Russia and Austria 
England, Prance and Russia 

England, Trance, Turkey and 

England, France, Spain and 

Confederate States 

Frajice. (England and Austro- 

Turkey, England, (France) and 

England, France and 



Turkey and Egypt. 


Russia, (Prussia) and 

United States 
Germany, (Russia and 

Russia and (Germany) 

Egypt, (Turkey and 

(Era of imperialistic expansion under the wing of the overwhelming 
British-French-American-Japanese alliance of 1897-1920.) 

Cyclical wars and 
Imperialistic wars 

Major Powers allied 
with British Empire 

No. 5 — Spanish- American 

X— Sudan War 

X— Boer War 

X — Partition of Siam 

— Russian-Japanese 

X — Morocco Conflict 

X — Persian Conflict 

O — Morocco "Affair" 

0— Tripoli War 

O— 1st Balkan War 

— 2nd Balkan War 


6— World War I 


United States and (England) 



England and France 

Japan (and England) 

"The Allies" (and Italy) 

England (and France) 

England and France 

Italian "reward" or "material 

quid pro quo" 
Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and 

Rumania, Greece and Serbia 

"The Allies" and Italy, Rumania, 
Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, etc. 
(Pop. 1,200,000,000) 

Major British 

Spain and (Germany) 



Orange Free State and 

South African Rep 
Siamese Nationalists 

Russia (and Germany) 

Germany and Austro- 

Russia and (Germany) 





Germany, Austro-Hungary 
Turkey, and Bulgaria. 
(Pop. 120,000,000) 

(The era of imperialistic expansion, inaugurated by the internationalistic 
William McKinley, Chauncey M. Depew and Theodore Roosevelt of the 
party of "The Full Dinner Pail" of 1896, was ended in 1920 when the people 
of the United States buried the interventionist candidates on the Democratic 
ticket of that year, James E. Cox and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, under a 
gigantic landslide.) 

(The alliance with the British Empire was resumed with the election of 
the party of "The More Abundant Life.") 

No. — South American "The Allies" 

Conflict and 

World-wide boycott 

7— World War II "The Allies" 

(World War II appears 
to be cyclical war No 1 
of a new Grand Cycle) 

New Cycle 

No. 2— -Russian seizure 

of Warm Water 


(Pop. 1,100,000,000) 

"The Allies", Turkey, etc. 


Germany, Japan, Hungary, 
Roumania, Bulgaria, 
Slovakia, Finland, 
(Italy), (France), and 
(Spain) withsubjectareas 
(Pop. 700,000,000) 

Russia and new Soviet 

The term "conflict" as here used refers to diplomatic intrigue, incitations 
to internal disorders, and military and naval demonstrations and clashes 
short of formal war. Names of countries shown in parenthesis indicate allies 
that made no formal entry into war, due to limited length of the conflict or 
due to being opposed by or paired with a major opponent. The same indi- 
cation has been used to indicate the present doubtful position of Italy and 

The predicted clash with Russia, within this decade of the British allies, 
assisted by Turkey, seems an utterly logical conclusion. Every Russian 
diplomatic move and every Russian war for one hundred thirty years has 
been a part of a campaign, which has cost many millions of lives, to reach 
Constantinople and the Dardanelles. The price exacted by Russia for her 
entry into World War I was Constantinople, the city of the Tsar, the city of 
the Caesar, the Tsarigrad. World War II has a very surprising resemblance 
to almost every aspect of the colossal Napoleonic struggle, and the ground- 
work is apparently being laid to repeat the bloody 1 30 year grand cycle here 

China, Russia, the United States and Germany are in order the most 
populous independent nations in the world, and therefore represent the most 
dynamic and most dangerous competition of the British Empire. All of them 
have been the victims of recurrent British repression. The Russian and 
German cycles of repression were listed in the foregoing tabulation. The 
Chinese cycle follows: 

War and Period 
Opium War, 1840-1843 
Revolution, 1857-1858 
Storming of Pekin, 1860 
Revolution, 1860-1865 
Yellow War, 1894-1895 
Revolution, 1898 
Boxer War, 1900-1901 
Revolution, 1911 
Revolution, 19281927 

Manchurian Conquest, 1931 

British Allies 
England and France 
England and France 
England and France 
England and France 
Japan and (England) 
All the Great Powers 
England, France, Japan, 

Portugal, Spain and Holland 

British Opponent 
Chinese Dynasty 
Chinese Nationalists 
Chinese Dynasty 
Chinese Nationalists 
Chinese Dynasty 
Chinese Nationalists 
Chinese Nationalists 
Chinese Nationalists 
Gen. Chiang Kai-shek 

Gen. Chiang Kai-shek 

Of the events which led to the British war with the Chinese Nationalists 
under Chiang Kai-Shek in 1926-1927, T'ang Leang-Li writes in "China in 
Revolt" published in London in 1927 that the City of Wanhsien of 750,000 
population was bombarded on Sunday evening, Sept. 5, 1926, by a British 
fleet, causing civilian casualties of 2000 and destruction of a great part of 
the city. This despite the fact that General Yang Sen had merely detained 
the British steamer Wanliu to investigate a "river outrage" and negotiations 
had been in progress a day or two, and despite the fact that bombardment 

cf an unfortified town is forbidden by international law. The bombardment 
was made the subject of a message of congratulation to the naval authority 
by H. M. Government. 

T'ang Leang-Li further charges that repeated raids on the Kuo Min 
Tang headquarters in the British Concession at Tientsin, in November and 
December of the year before, by the British police, resulting in the handing 
over of numerous Nation'alists, including several girl students, for court- 
martial to their mortal enemies, who are notoriously savage in their dealings 
with political opponents, cannot but be interpreted as a desire on the part 
of the British authorities at Tientsin to assist in a plain and deliberate mas- 
sacre; that British agents in China continue to pursue the traditional policy 
of blackmail and bully. The British policy of the Iron Hand, far from in- 
timidating the Chinese people, has as its effect the rallying of the Chinese 
masses to the banner of the anti-Imperialist Chinese National Party. (Rage 

T'ang Leang-Li describes in some detail the spider-web of exploitation 
woven about China by International Finance, and the traditional British 
policy of promptly attacking and eradicating any Chinese government indi- 
cating initiative and growing strength. 

Few Americans realize that as late as 1932, Japan was engaged in sub- 
duing Manchuria as a British ally, with British support and protection, 
against the protests of the League of Nations, the United States and China. 

Manchuria was awarded to Japan by the British international financial 
oligarchy for assuming the greater part of the fighting and the expense to 
overcome the Chinese Nationalist revolution of 1926-1927 under General 
Chiang Kai-shek against the domination of the British. It is of interest to 
note that every war listed as a "Revolution," including the "Boxer" War, 
was a war against foreign imperialists holding the Chinese Government in 
bondage, a war against the bankers of the City and against the "foreign 
devils." ~ 

The statesmen of the international financial oligarchy made many de- 
ceptive and illusory promises to many peoples and many nations before and 
during World War I to induce them to fight their aggressors and to defeat 
them in absolute and total victory, and Mr. Woodrow Wilson promised many 
more things, and these promises were revoked almost without exception after 
total victory had been won. Mr. Wilson's promises of "New Orders" and 
"New Freedoms" to the subjects of the British Empire were all retracted 
and resulted in an immense wave of riot and revolution over a period of years 
following World War I. The following are some of the most outstanding of 
these instances of bloodshed: 

Egyptian Revolution 1919 - 1921 

Anglo-Irish Vfer. Jan., 1919 - May, 1921 

Ulster War July, 1920- June, 1922 

Massacre of Amritsar April 13, 1921 

Indian Revolution 1921 - 1922 

Egyptian Revolution 1924 - 1925 

In an editorial "A Dwarf Between Giants" in the Chicago Tribune of 
Sunday February 6, 1944, appears a statement that the British Foreign office 
has generally run America's foreign affairs for fifty years, and that for the 
past eleven years the British have had no difficulty in guiding our policy. 
That this is true is apparent from the following chapters herein in which is 
given a detailed description of the means, the men, and the methods by 
which this was accomplished. 




The end of the Napoleonic war left the mighty Turkish Empire form- 
ing a great crescent directly across the path to India. At that time Turkey 
included much of what is now lugo-Slavia, Greece, Roumania, Bulgaria, 
and northern Africa up to Tunis and it was a potent threat to further 
British expansion in the Mohammedan East. An uprising in the Greek 
provinces of Turkey provided a suitable cause for war. Russia joined the 
British-French alliance as the protector of her brethren of the Greek Catholic 
Church and in promotion of her aspiration to gain access to open water 
through the Porte. A British-French-Russian fleet destroyed an allied 
Turkish-Egyptian fleet on Oct. 20, 1827. Then the British and French, 
withdrew, leaving Russia to fight Turkey alone. Russia defeated the Turks 
and the war was ended on Sept. 24, 1829. 

The British and French would not permit tussia the fruits of victory; 
she was not permitted to open the Porte or to gain free access to open water, 
and her efforts for over one hundred years up to this day to gain unrestricted 
access to a warm water port through the Porte, the Baltic, the Persian Gulf 
or the Yellow Sea have been frustrated by the "policy of e.., ".rclement," and 
this subject will come up for troublesome discussion in the near future. 

After having been reduced to utter bankruptcy, inflation and despair by 
the frightful bloodletting of the gigantic Napoleonic World War, the new 
French Government was readily subsidized by the International Bankers in 
an alliance which made France the perennial junior partner in their world 
imperialism for over one hundred years until the recent collapse of France. 
France has been the ideal partner for she has always conceded to the Lion, 
"the Lion's share;" a share which has always been about 75% or over, even 
in the case of World War I. 

Several million Greek orthodox Christians still remained under Turkish 
rule after Russia had achieved the independence of Greece in 1829, and these 
people were subjected to the most inhuman and monstrous cruelties by 
Mohammedan persecution; and this condition continued over a long span 
of years until modern times, despite repeated promises of reform by the 
Turkish Government. As the Czar considered himself the protector of these 
Greek Orthodox Christians, this provided a constant cause of friction and 


grievance, which together with the British and Turkish obstruction to the 
Russian pressure for free passage through the Porte, was known as "The 
Eastern Question;" and this situation overshadowed the power politics of 
Europe for almost three quarters of a century and formed the basis for a 
succession of bloody conflicts. 

The Standard History, 1899, quotes:- "The ascendancy of Russia was 
accompanied by the rise of a wholly new policy in Europe with regard to 
the Eastern Question. The old feeling that the Turk was the common enemy 
of Christendom, that every victory over the Crescent, no matter by what 
power it was gained, was a subject for general triumph, completely disappear- 
ed. On the contrary, the Turkish power was to be maintained, because 
Russia was dreaded.') 

Britain resurrected the principle laid down by William Pitt who had 
argued that "the true principle by which the foreign policy of England 
should be directed, was the fundamental principle of preserving the balance 
of power in Europe; and that the true doctrine of the balance of power re- 
quired that the Russian Empire should not, if possible, be allowed to increase, 
nor that of Turkey to diminish." 

Twenty-four years after Russia had helped Britain overcome the menace 
of the Mussulman to her eastern possessions, the first war broke in the 
"Eastern Question;" the great Crimean War, in which Britain, France and 
Turkey (later joined by Sardinia, predecessor of modern Italy) defeated 
Russia in 1853-1856 at a cost of one million lives. The House of Savoy, rulers 
of Sardinia, entered this war in a political deal which placed it on the throne 
of a newly united Italy in 1861, through British victory. 

The years of 1869-70 found Britain and its balance of power in an ex- 
ceedingly precarious position. Its interference in the American Civil War 
now faced it with an angry and resentful America possessed of the world's 
greatest army and a powerful navy of the new and terrible ironclads, demand- 
ing redress for heavy damages due to British lend-lease to the Confederacy. 
Russia had fully signified her intention to fight for revenge cf her beating in 
the war of 1853-1856 by sending two fleets to the United States when war 
had seemed most imminent between the United States and Britain during 
the Civil War, and in a further incident of strange significance, the Queen 
of Spain was dethroned in a revolution. 

This auspicious moment was seized by Prussia, largest of the many 
small German speaking states of central Europe, to abandon her role in the 
local politics of Europe and to enter on the stage of world power politics. 
Her ambitious prime-minister, Count von Bismarck, had already unified the 
German states into a loose confederation, and now attempted to place a 
Prussian princeling on the vacant throne of Spain. This was a step towards 


a natural alliance, for Spain was and still is the implacable and unforgiving 
foe of Britain, the nation that seized its colonies and reduced it to a state 
of poverty and decay. 

The move of Bismarck to place a German ruler on the throne cf Spain 
was summarily challenged by France and the name of the German candidate, 
Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, was withdrawn within about 
ten days by July 12, 1870. In accordance with the established tradition of 
the British-French financial oligarchy never to accept anything short of 
unconditional surrender, the French government demanded in addition an 
abject personal apology from King William I of Prussia on July 14, 1870. 

When this personal apology was refused France declared war the follow- 
ing day. Britain, as usual, made no immediate move; and six months and 
twelve days later, on January 27, 1871, the defeat of France was utter and 
complete. Nearly all the German States promptly joined in the war, and by 
the end of July, the highly skilled German nilitay chief, General von Moltke, 
had 700,000 men along the French frontier. Emperor Napoleon III took 
over the chief command of the French armies. Napoleon III was captured 
by the Germans together with 120,000 men at the Battle of Sedan, on Sept. 
2, 1870. On January 19, 1871, King William I of Prussia, was formally pro- 
claimed Emperor of the new German Empire, ? union of four kingdoms and 
twenty-one other principalities of central Europe. Although the war had 
been very short, nearly one-half million men perished. (See footnote.) 

A meaaage was transmitted for the French Emperor on July 6, lfC, by Baron Roth- 
schild of Paris to Baron Lionel Nathan Rothschild of London. The message was deciphered 
by Nathaniel Maier Rothschild, still head of the House of Rothschild at the beginning of 
World War I, and by him delivered to Mr. Gladstone early on the morning of July 6th. 
The message was to inform Mr. G. that the council of ministers at Madrid had decided 
to propose Prim? Leopold of Hohenzollern for the Spanish throne, that his candidature 
would be intolerable to France, that the Emperor hoped Mr. Gladstone would endeavor 
to secure its withdrawal. 

Mr. Gladstone stated his reluctance to interfere with the liberty of the Spanish people 
to choose their own sovereign. He was nevertheless later confronted with a dispatch to 
the King of Prussia drafted by Lord Granville and asked to sign the same. Again Mr. 
Gladstone waa reluctant, but after several days of hesitation, he added to Lord Granville's 
draft an appeal to the magnanimity of the King, begged him to consider the danger to the 
peace of Europe, enjoined him further to say nothing to give ground for the supposition 
that England had any business to discuss the abstract right of Spain to choose her own 
sovereign. (Morley'a IAfe ofO., Book VZ, Ch. IV.) 

Gladstone^ appeal was supported by an energetic representation to Berlin by Austria, 
seat of the third Rothschild dynasty, and the King of Prussia immediately ordered the 
candidacy of Prince Leopold withdrawn. Having inveigled Mr. Gladstone into a definite 
position, the tone of France suddenly became harsh and menacing. Evidently mistaking 
the quick compliance of King William I as a sign of weakness and fear of an apparently 
united Austrian. British and French coalition, they demanded two days later, on July 14th, 
that the Prussian King make a personal pledge that he would never again sanction any 
similar political mope. This was an ultimatum of unparalleled effrontery demanding in 
effect that Prussia in utter humiliation acknowledge herself a vassal of France, with no 
further voice in the council of Nations. The King politely declined the French demand and 
France declared war the next day. Each and every war of modem times has been preceded 
by an interchange in similar terms of arrogance and contempt by the statesmen allied with 


This war occured in the adult life of thousands of American citizens of 
today; and in that same span from 1871 to today perhaps 25,000,000 to 
30,000,000 human beings have lost their lives in the struggle of the "Balance 
of Power." This is a "Big-League" game, and we are now the principal 

The crash of the European Balance of Power was promptly exploited 
to its utmost by the nations of the continent. The head of the House of 
Savoy revoked the agreement with the British-French oligarchy by which 
he had been made King of Italy and sent an army to seize the Pontifical 
States of Italy, which were under the temporal rule of the Pope as their 
absolute sovereign. The troops of the Pope surrendered on September 20, 
1870, and the capital of Italy was moved from Florence to Rome on July 
3, 1871. 

Russia at the outbreak of this war denounced the treaty of 1856 and 
rebuilt her Black Sea fleet and fortifications, and prepared to resume her 
offensive in the "Eastern Question," thus undoing everything for which a 
million men had died a brief 15 years before. She had openly supported 
Prussia and any move on the part of England would have promptly brought 
her into the Franco-Prussian war, and she now was free to act. Her first 
move was a drive into Turkestan up to the borders of Persia, Afghanistan 
and India. In this campaign she defeated the Khan of Khiva in the spring 
of 1873, the Turkomans in the fall of 1873, and the Khan of Khokand in 
the summer of 1875. 

I n the meantime Russian political penetration roused the peasants of the 
Turkish provinces of Herzegovina and Bosnia into rebellion in July, 1875, 
and this was followed by declarations of war by other Turkish political sub- 
divisions; Servia and Montenegro in 1876, and Bulgaria and Roumania in 
1877. The stage was then set for Russia's answer to the Eastern Question 
and her revenge for the horrors perpetrated on her religious compatriots, 
and the war that followed was fought with bestial fury, with no quarter given 
or asked. The Turks fought with frenzied determination and losses were 
immense on both sides, but the odds were too great and nine months after 

International Finance; with a disdainful refusal of any basis of settlement making any 
reasonable concession. 

Gladstone was horrified; and this great opponent of Toryism and its wars stated that 
the diplomacy on the side of the Government of France anterior to the war, made up a 
chapter which for fault and folly taken altogether is almost without a parallel in the history 
of nations. With one stroke France united the quarreling and jealous small German king^ 
d o m and principalities of central Europe into a great empire and threw itself under the 
grinding wheels of Bismarck, to be utterly demolished in sir months time. The French 
calculations proved entirely wrong. The illusion of International Finance that Russia had 
been immobilized for 100 years by the Crimean War of only 14 years before quickly vanished, 
with a vindicative Russia holding Austria at bay and repudiating her terms of surrender 
in that war. The German victory was too sudden to permit the financiers of the City and 
the Conservatives to unseat the anti-imperialistic Liberal, Gladstone; and to intervene. 


declaration of war the Russian army was encamped in the suburbs of Con- 
stantinople, with the Turkish army totally dispersed. The Russians had 
been well prepared, for two immense armies totalling 500,000 men had moved 
over the border into Turkey within a few hours after the declaration of war. 

The conduct of this war throughout was exceedingly brutal. Turkish 
prisoners were kept herded out in the open in bitter winter weather without 
food or shelter for many days, to die by the thousands. The American military 
observer, Lieut. F. V. Greene, relates in "Army Life in Russia," published 
in 1881 that in passnlg one of the burial trenches filled with the bodies of 
naked Turkish dead, he saw among the corpses a living man; his head and 
one arm only visible, speechlessly beckoning for aid. He called attention to 
this man but nothing was done for him. Nevertheless, when the Russians 
reached the suburbs of Constantinople, they did not enter the city to loot 
and destroy; on the contrary, the Grand Duke Nikolaus made a formal call 
on the Sultan to pay his respects, duly returned by the Sultan. 

A treaty of peace was made at San Stefano, near Constantinople, on 
March 3, 1878, between Russia and Turkey; which was promptly challenged 
by Disraeli. Britain had been unable to come to Turkey's assistance, but 
had charged Russia with deliberate violation of the Treaty of Paris in attack- 
ing the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. To save face, she declared she 
would remain neutral as long as British interests were not attacked, and 
these were defined as follows: First, the navigation of the Suez Canal must 
not be blockaded or interfered with. Second, Egypt must not be attacked or 
occupied. Third, Constantinople must not pass into any other hands than 
those of its present possessors. Fourth, the existing arrangements concern- 
ing the navigation of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles must not be changed. 

Unable to oppose Russia by force, Britain appealed the Treaty of San 
Stefano to the Concert of Europe, an informal organization of the nations 
of Europe which had attempted to install a system of law and order into the 
affairs of the world since the Napoleonic wan. Russia obediently waited on 
the outskirts of Constantinople for six months after the close of the war; her 
soldiers eager to go home after their great victory, ill-housed and exposed 
to the weather and ravaged by disease, until the European Concert had 
concluded the Treaty of Berlin on July 13, 1878. 

That part of the Eastern Question pertaining to the Turkish atrocities 
was now fully settled with general freedom for the Balkan nations, and 
Russia had demolished the Porte; but, on the other side of the Porte stood 
the British fleet, and that part of the Eastern Question has never been settled, 
for the new alignments of the Balance of Power left Russia helpless in Europe 

With their Turkish ally of no further use, the British banking oligarchy 
subsidized the government of Turkey's vassal state Egypt the next year 


with a largely fictitious loan. The Egyptians rose against this seizure under 
the leadership of their War Minister Arabi Pasha with the battle cry of 
"Egypt for the Egyptians." While the French and British fleets demolished 
the Egyptian fleet in July 1882 and defeated Arabi's army shortly afterwards, 
the revolution continued for many years. In 1885, the renowned "trouble 
shooter" of the British Empire, Gen. Chas. G. Gordon lost his life in the 
Egyptian war, and final victory was not achieved by the British until 1898, 
when Lord Kitchener defeated the Mahdi. Gen. Gordon, also known as 
Gordon Pasha and as Chinese Gordon, played a large role in the British and 
French subjugation of China. 

Turkey, once the world's greatest empire, and still the nominal leader 
of the vast Mohammedan world, has had a number of years of fair prosperity 
and modernization and has profited much from the present war. The Mo- 
hammedans, largely under British and French rule, have a great store of 
grievances against this rule, real and fancied; and with the relatively small 
Christian white population of the world engaged in annihilating themselves 
in a shambles of intolerance caused by illusion and deceit; a world-wide up- 
rising of the Mussulman is not so far-fetched. 


The leading powers of Europe had adopted a custom of meeting in a 
conference from time to time whenever some particularly perplexing problem 
arose to threaten the peace, and the successive treaties and agreements 
adopted at these conventions in time covered a large part of the customs and 
intercourse between these nations. This concert of the nations in time as- 
sumed an official status. The effect of this was to create a type of "League 
of Nations;" which, while not in itself an entity, nevertheless ruled by the 
will of the majority. 

Among the earlier meetings of the Powers were the Congress of Vienna 
in 1814-1815, of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, Carlsbad in 1819, Verona in 1822, 
and London in 1830. The Concert of Europe attempted again and again to 
bring about a settlement in the Eastern Question. Only British consent 
kept the Congress from quickly disposing of that part of the Eastern Question 
affecting the Mohammedan persecution of the millions of Christians of the 
Turkish conquered Balkan nations, by united action of all the nations of 
continental Europe. These small nations had been conquered by the Turk 
after the Christian world had collapsed due to economic causes similar to 
those of the past few years and a frantic new deal type of spending, which 
had eventually exhausted the inexhaustible treasury of Rome, that great 
empire which included nearly all of Europe, present-day Turkey, and other 
parts of Asia and Africa. 

Civilization has risen to great peaks and fallen to deep valleys again 
and again during the centuries, and Rome marked the last great peak of 
civilization. Let us note that Rome built 50,000 miles of hard-surfaced cement 
roads in its day; that for one thousand years after the fall of Rome not one 
mile of cement road was built in Europe, that even the secret of making cement 
was only rediscovered in recent years. That with its capital spent, all Europe 
plunged into chaos, with its immense natural wealth of little avail. 

That inexorable self-interest which will sacrifice everything and any- 
thing to the future expansion and well-being of the British Empire was 
clearly and shamelessly exposed in every discussion of the Eastern Question 
during the years. The traditional British explanation of their war aims, 
originated in her war with France for hegemony of the seas of the world, 
that it was not their intent to fight the French people — only to rid Europe of 


the Scourge of Napoleon, bring peace to Europe and preserve the rights of 
small nations; since repeated in war after war with a slight transposition of 
names, was not used in this instance. Every aspect of human decency, of 
human compassion, of the freedom of men, of the rights of small nations, 
left British statesmen cold, were championed entirely by Russia. Ghoulish 
atrocities committed under that command of the Koran: "0 true believers, 
wage war against such of the infidels as are near you," were loftily ignored 
in expediency of empire; nothing was to be permitted to upset the then se- 
cure Balance of Power. 

In treating the Eastern Question in his "Army Life in Russia," Lieut. 
F. V. Greene, the former military attache to the U. S. Legation at St. Peters- 
burg wrote: "Deprived of her colonies and her commerce, England would 
at once sink to the level of the smaller states of Europe, following in the 
wake of Holland and Venice and Spain, who in their days have been great 
and powerful, but who have declined with the loss of their foreign possessions 
and the commerce which they sustained. . . . No single event could strike so 
serious a blow as the loss of India. Of all the great possessions — it is hardly 
a colony — it is the most alien to the British race, and it is held as a mere 
money-making investment. Its people are ground with extortionate taxation, 
are allowed no voice in their own affairs, are treated with studied scorn. ... It 
is held as a market in which to buy cheap and sell dear, and as a place in which 
younger sons and needy relations can amass fortunes to be subsequently 
enjoyed in England. Its loss would result in a financial crisis which would 
shake the whole fabric of England's commercial prosperity, and deal a blow 
at her political prestige from which she could hardly recover." 

Lieut. Greene stated further in this book- "I have also attempted to 
give prominence to the Russian views of the question — which, in the main, 
I believe to the correct ones — because Americans are in the habit of hearing 
only the other side. Our language being the same as that of England, and 
the opinions of the Continent being transmitted to us principally through the 
English press, we receive constantly the most prejudiced, unfair, and at times 
false statements about Eastern affairs." Of the diplomatic discussions over 
the Turkish revolutions which immediately preceded Russian intervention 
he wrote: "Austria, Germany, France and Italy all in turn pressed England 
to accept the memorandum, or to suggest any modifications she might desire 
in its language. She declined to do either. They then asked Lord Derby if 
he had any proposition of his own to make, and he replied none. "Her 
Majesty's Government deprecated the diplomatic action of the other Powers 
in the affairs of the Ottoman Empire." Russia then asked what was the 
drift of England's policy; what were her ideas in the matter? To which 
Lord Derby replied, that he thought nothing remained but to let the struggle 
.continue until success should declare itself on one side or the other. In other 

words, in British phrase, form a ring and let 'em tight it out with the usual 
result of indiscriminate slaughter and pillage . . ." 

The political aims of nations change little through the years, and one 
hundred years in the life of a nation are perhaps as ten in the life of the 
individual. That the leopard did not change his spots in the case of Britain 
would appear from the fact that Sir Edward Grey used these tactics of the 
Lord Derby almost exactly in evading the urgent representations of Germany 
in her effort to escape World War I in 1914, as recorded by J. Ramsay Mac- 
Donald, later Prime Minister of Britain, in his article "Why We Are At War. 
A Reply to Sir Edward Grey," in which he accused Sir Edward Grey of the 
war guilt. It is utterly impossible to reconcile these lofty and disdainful 
expressions of Lord Derby with the crushing debacle that followed at once 
when Russia removed Turkey from the British Balance of Power with one 
ferocious lunge, thus disproving the view of many Englishmen that the 
march of Russian conquest had been set back one hundred years by the 
Crimean War of only 21 years before. 

Surprised and frightened Britain now turned to the Concert of Europe, 
which she had heretofore flouted, for assistance. The British-French financial 
oligarchy had been grooming Austria for some years as a British ally in the 
growing German and Russian menace through" their related banking house 
at Vienna. To influence the Congress of Benin in its consideration of the 
Treaty of Stefano, it was threatened to have Austria attack Russia with 
British financial support. In addition British reserves were called out. War- 
weary Russia was obliged to accept new terms and the Treaty of Berlin 
signed July 13, 1878, deprived her of any territorial gain, but allowed her an 
indemnity for part of her war cost. In general, the freedom of the Balkan 
nations was admitted with various modifications to remove their governments 
from any Russian influence. Armenia was left under Turkish rule to furnish 
another Eastern Question in very recent years. Herzegovina and Bosnia 
whose rebellion in July 1875 had started this era of bloody slaughter, were 
given to Austria for her support of Britain over their furious protests; and 
it was rebellion in these provinces of Austria which touched off the fuse in 
World War I, 36 years after they had become Austrian provinces. Britain 
seized Cyprus in order to create a base to halt any further designs by Russia 
upon the Porte. 

All the nations of Europe now considered the Eastern Question fully 
settled and Russia also realized the futility of any further efforts in the face 
of the new powers. Europe had assumed its modern complexion, with the 
new "Great Powers" of Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary in full strength. 
The successful settlement of the Eastern Question had raised the Concert of 
Europe to the status of the de facto government of the world. The British 
Balance of Power was in abeyance, and there was an era of stablity. Germany 
in particular engaged in no major conflict for 43 years. 




Immediately after the Russo-Turkish war the British-French oligarchy 
was engaged for some years in the conquest of the former Turkish vassal 
state Egypt and the Egyptian Sudan, but their world-wide program of 
aggression and expansion was badly curtailed by the restrictions imposed by 
the Congress of Europe, which had extended its sphere of influence to cover 
the entire world. There was a continual pressure, sometimes referred to as 
piracy, on the part of the great European members of the Concert for equiva- 
lent compensation for every other nation for each British-French penetration 
and expansion, and a growing fleet of a powerful Germany was a particularly 
insistent persuader and irritant in this attitude. 

This irksome situation of general interference in the affairs of the British- 
French financial house was aggravated by the threat of revolution in many 
of its colonies, and the most dangerous of these revolutions was threatening 
in China about 1894. China had been subjected to British-French commercial 
and political control in the Opium War of 1840 (see footnote). Since that 
time there had been a succession of uprisings of the Chinese Nationalists to 
throw off this yoke. The British and French were obliged to fight this Chinese 
aggression in 1840 to 1843, from 1857 to 1858, from 1860 to 1865, in 1894, 
in 1898, in 1900, in 1911 and in 1927; in addition to almost endless minor 
aggression in one part of China or another. For this aggression China had 
indemnities assessed against her which ranged from about $28,750,000.00 in 
1843 to $750,000,000.00 in 1900. The government of China in 1894 was in 
the hands of a British mercenary, Li Hung-Chang, a former lieutenant of the 
noted British "trouble-shooter" Chinese Gordon, who ruled as Vice-Roy. 

This brewing and most certain revolution was known to be well organized 
and together with the growing pressure of the European Concert for a more 
equitable participation and distribution of the raw materials and resources 
of the world, faced the international oligarchy with a rapidly growing menace 
abroad at a time when the Gladstone Liberals were still loud and vocal and 
unmuzzled. While Mr. Gladstone had been openly charged with treason for 

Of the opium War of 1840 Mr. William E. Gladstone said: "I am not competent to 
judgehow long this war may last. . .but that I can say, that a war more unjust in its origin, 
6. war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with disgrace, I do not know 
and I have not read of." 


his opposition to British imperialistic aggression; the benign character of 
that dual and double-headed Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde structure of govern- 
ment, known to Americans simply a^ the British Government, was still at 
one of its peaks of strength; and the financial oligarchy found itself in a very 
weak and vulnerable position, in dealing with the imminent Chinese uprising. 

Of this concealed dual nature of the British Government, George Burton 

Adams, late Professor of History, Emeritus, Yale University, authoritatively 

develops in his "Constitutional History of England" that the members of 

the British Cabinet are strangely impotent; are not permitted to make any 

written notations of proceedings of the Cabinet; have no aoces^^oor^ 

of proceedings, if any, made by the Prime Minister; are not permitted, to 

make reference afterwards to anything that had transpired at a meeting of 

the Cabinet (page 493). He further develops the utter lack of power of , the 

House of Commons and of the House of Lords (pages 472-474); states, '"£he 

House of Commons no longer controls the Executive; on the contrary the 

Executive controls the House of Commons. ' ' (Page 495.) There is a distinction 

between the Government of Great Britain, which is largely confined to the 

internal government of the British Isles, and the British Government which 

controls the British Empire. > -^'/ rfifA 

^ wSJ fm 4'iira/ - i niton 

Referring to "Great Britain, Banking In" in the E^^Jpp^dijl Amerjc&h,a, 

it appears that the Bank of England is not subject > to any control by any 

governmental agency of Great Britain, and thai it is ! abbye all ^over^tiefl^' 

despite the fact that it is privately owned o md its d^e<;tprs- are nominated by 

its proprietors. In the Encyclopedia Britannica' of 189 tit is^ermea^a -great 

Engine of Government." It is J?JlJii^|lf^^^M^fe^i^g^ft 

institution is now in grave financial: difilcultiesaiitojirfcslOans rand ifoorndsiandi 

mortgages disavowed all over the world, and that it is being bolstered by Huge' 

funds being syphoned f^tW^^^^^^M^tm, 

footnote.) .i i''i ojljini oj mhiihei adi gabbrmq eirfT) .teftiJin ybaoi/pnwiiM 

■-> « :u;)5I" xii qqsiO X niwb3 .toil yd beqolsvsb '>.)« 

■ ■ (i,i to lo.t.tam edi rA aiubssoiq srf.t u&od gitivfirf >.s> .".iO.i 

The 1943 edition of the Encyclopedia, Ajoa^scftiiafijCy^i J:^..- ( W^ili(0*' this ' stunningly 
significant statement of the Bank of England, that full partner of the American Admin in- 
tration in the conduct of the financial affairs oi all the world: ". . , Its weakness is the weak- 
ness inherent in a system which ^a^dfey^lo^e&Wth the toalleit' amoijrit 6f legislative 
control ... its capital is held prtvaMyV'&Mf TB nian&gemeStft) 'is not Ih ! aify''way 'directly or 
indirectly controlled by the;state> n(^ thfcp&e^hand^d^jngiitS; whole historyjit has been 
more or less under thepfotewtipnr^itl^iiSt^tejijtP-.deiTelppmeBt has been imarked.- by suc- 
cessive loans of its capital to the state in return for the confirmation or extension of : its 
privileges, and it still cOBlinttesito-exercjflejPfiw^iiS^ud: owe responsibilities,, delegated by 
the state . . . The bank of r England is controlled by a governor^ deputy-governor and a 
court of 24 directors who ore elected by the pt-oprietdfa bn'tbenbrninatibh-of thefdirectors . . ." 
(This is a description of a privately owned :strk<Stuijfe' of 'gO^erhmer^t; soVerefgn' in iW own 
right, and over and' above the laws'&f Englandy 'A : 6t$iM& : admKtec3y aittained by bribing 

dishonest officials of the Government' of the British Islei''1jhtt)ugh' the' yeftrfe to" gradually 
extinguish the freedom and rights bftlie, p'teple!.') ,oi anui ;J «o «Fra " ; !' f> _;"'■' 

That the nature of this strange: bank is actually that of a secret Jholdjjwj company of 
colossal size is indicated by a reference ^^rrj ''E^^iii's Monevljords Tory TSi.F", by Simon 
Haxey, to (page 158) Lancastshire Steel Corporation, sub^iary'jpr the Bank of England/ 

The startling aspect cf the dual nature cf the British Government has 
the support cf many eminent authorities on the subject, despite the fact that 
millions cf American school textbooks and works of popular reference, and 
the books of thousands cf pseudo history experts, have woven a fabric of 
deceit, and created popular acceptance cf an illusion and a fallacy by the 
cumulative force cf constant repetition. 

The impeachment of this dual structure cf government by Prof. Adams 
is fully supported by the authoritative "Laws of England" cf the Lord cf 
Halsbury, a massive work cf many huge volumes, and by the specific state- 
ments and writings of David Starr Jordan, late president cf Stanford Univer- 
sity, Gladstone, David Lloyd George, J. Ramsay MacDonald, Vincent C. 
Vickers, director cf the Bank of England and cf Vickers-Armstrong arma- 
ment works, Harold J. Laaki and many others. "Better Times" by the 
Hon. D. Lloyd George in 1910 is particularly revealing. (See footnote.) 

The wide latitude of action of the agents and servants of the CROWN and their 
remarkable immunity from the interference of English Courts and of English law appears 
in the "Laws of England" of Lord Halsbury as apparent from a few selected passages as 
follows: Vol. 6 page 388, art. 582 — . . . Nor can the Crown, by proclamation or otherwise, 
make or unmake any law on its own authority apart from Parliament, except in colonies 
to which representative institutions have not been granted. (This excepts only England, 
Canada, Australia, Union of South Africa and New Zealand, who between them have only 
13% — almost the total white population of 68,000,000 of the Empire — of the people of 
the British Empire, from the utterly absolute and autocratic rule of the Crown, THE 
Bank and THE City.) 

Vol. 23, page 307, par. 641 — If under a treaty with a foreign state, a government 
has received funds for the benefit of a private person or class of persons, although a moral 
obligation may thereby be imposed upon the government to pay the funds so received to 
such persons, no action or petition of right, will be at their suit to recover the fund, and 
the intended ultimate beneficiaries cannot compel the government to carry out the obli- 

Par. 642 — Anexecutive or administrative act of a subject, though in the first instance 
done without the authority of his Sovereign, will have all the effect of an Act of State if 
subsequently ratified. (This provides the facilities to make the law afterwards to fit the 
case, as developed by Prof. Edwin J. Clapp in "Economic Aspects of the War" published 
1913 as having been the procedure in the matter of the American ship Wilhelmma.) 

Par. 643 — The Sovereign can do no wrong, and no legal proceedings can be brought 
against him . . . 

Par. 648 — As regards Ireland, all of the official acts of the Lord Lieutenant are Acts 
of State apparently even if ultra vires (transcending authority conferred by law). 

Par. 650 — The official acts of every state or potentate whose independence has been 
recognized by the Crown, and of their authorized agents, are Acts of State. No action 
can be brought in respect of such acts, even where the agent is a British subject, and where, 
in carrying out the Act of State, he is committing an offense agaisnt English law . . . 

This gives a fair outline of the adroit and dexterious machinery of government which 
is able to adjust itself to any situation and clothe it with a veil of justice and right, and 
^ hich provides the tool to make the 435,000,000 colored people of the British Empire its 
utterly voiceless subjects; and which in addition has had virtually complete control of the 
government and commerce of China for over one hundred years, and of other apparently 
independent countries; so that it can reasonably be stated that over half of all the people 
of the world have been its subjects up to recent times. Of this government the late President 
Jordan of Stanford University said: "Everything runs as though newly oiled, and the 
British public hears nothing of it." 


The manipulations of the financial oligarchy at the Berlin Convention 
to modify the Treaty of San Stefano had enraged many of the people of 
Europe and there followed some serious racial riots in Germany and Russia. 
The coming war in China against the financial oligarchy would very likely 
have been quickly followed by an uprising in India, with the whole British 
Empire subject to a searching investigation of the entire Concert of Europe, 
in which the British would have had only the very weak French support. 
However, the great depression of the 90's provided a solution, with the whole 
world in the grip of over-production and lack of markets. 

It appears that about 1895 the first of the series of secret treaties be- 
tween Japan and Britain, which made Japan virtually a British robot, was 
made. The British financial oligarchy practically took over the Japanese 
banking system to finance her wars and the immense industrial expansion 
which eventually swamped the world with goods made in Japan. Of this 
deal, the former Kaiser Wilhelm II wrote in his "Memoirs" published in 
1921: "Some day when Hongkong has gone the same way, England will 
repent of her act. . . When once Japan has made a reality out of her watch- 
word 'Asia for the Asiatics' and brought China and India under her sway, 
England will cast her eyes about in vain search of Germany and the German 

France had now recovered from the beating of 1871, and the oligarchy 
was ready to lay the groundwork for a new world-wide balance of power, to 
supersede the noxious supervision of the Concert of Europe. By the treaties 
that followed on January 30, 1902 and in 1905, Japan became as close and 
subservient an ally of Britain as was France; and this alliance continued for 
about 35 years until it was ended by the assassination of the Japanese states- 
men associated with the international financial oligarchy. 

The thought that this Frankenstein of the financial oligarchy would 
eventually turn against its creators was expressed by Prof. Usher in his 
"Pan-Americanism" published in 1915, in these' words: "Nor should it be 
forgotten that the financial indebtedness of Japan, which taxes the capacity 
of that country to meet the interest and principal payments, is all owed in 
Europe and America. So far as any tangible evidence of that capital is in 
existence in the world, it is in Japan. . . The Japanese have only to repudiate 
their entire indebtedness to free the nation from a staggering load and put 
it at once in the possession of its whole economic development at the price 
of what they have already paid. The control of the Pacific, the annexation 
of the Spice Islands and the Philippines, the expulsion of foreigners, the assur- 
ance for all time of financial independence — these are indeed things to con- 
jure with. And we who can clearly see so much at so great a distance with 
so little aid, may well pause to wonder how much more the Japanese them- 
selves can see, and how long caution and prudence will counsel them to wait 
before attempting the attainment ot such desirable ends." 


The oligarchy sent its Chineae henchman, Li Hung-Chang, on a tour of 
the European capitals to negotiate a Chinese concession to each of the Great 
Powers to allay the rising resentment of theae powers in 1896, and to meet 
the coming Chinese Nationalist revolt. Each concession carried with it the 
requirement to help keep order in China. In this deal Russia was leased 
Port Arthur by the famous Li Hung-Chang-Lobanov Treaty of May, 1896, 
and subsequent agreements of September 8, 1896 and March 27, 1898. 
Germany was leased Kaiochow March 5,1 898, and Italy and Austria-Hungary 
also were given certain rights. The imminent Chineae revolt against the 
British yoke was represented to the people of the world as an indication of 
the extreme inner 'weakness of the Chinese dynasty and as an indication 
that China was on the point of falling apart in national disintegration, and 
that it was at the stage where the only solution was a division between the 
Great Powers. 

That the weakness of the Chinese dynasty was not as great as repre- 
sented may be apparent from the fact that the Emperor Kwang-Hsu ven- 
tured to dismiss the British hireling Li Hung-Chang with the support of the 
Nationalists in the summer of 1898, but as a result was himself deposed by 
the British, and Li Hung-Chang restored to influence under the nominal 
regency of the Empress Dowager. There are few instances in all history 
where there was more dissembly and falsification and feinting on the part of 
the Powers to keep the facts from the world as they were all implicated. 

The American political machine of 1896 was faced with the difficult task 
of pulling the United States out of the great depression of the 90's and to 
fulfill their promise of "The Full Dinner Pail." The task was difficult, for 
in the words of Chauncey Depew, great financial and political power of that 
day, we were producing two thousand millions of dollars more goods than we 
could consume, and this overproduction was going back to stagnation and 
poverty. In this critical period a deal was struck by which the American 
Wall Street became a branch office of the Bank of England. (See footnote.) 

The United States started its war with Spain ostensibly to free Cuba 
from Spanish oppression. Spain had fully accepted an American ultimatum 
on April 10, 1898, but this fact was ignored by President McKinley in asking 
for a declaration of war on the following day. On April 25, 1898, war was 
declared as existing since April 21st. The fleet of Admiral Dewey had been 
prepared for battle at Hongkong, and after receiving word of the declaration 
of war on April 27th, sped to Manila and attacked and sank the Spanish 

Prof. Usher stated in "Pan-Germanism" of 1913, Chapter X. pages 139 and 140; 
that an understanding was reached, probably before the summer of 1897, that in case of war 
the United States would promptly declare in favor of England and France and would do 
her utmost to assist them; and that there seems to be no doubt whatever that no papers 
of any sort were_ signed. He quotes further: "The alliance, for it was nothing less, was 
based upon infinitely firmer ground than written words and sheets of parchment . . ." 

fleetthere on the morning of May 1, 1898. The American people were electri- 
fied by this unexpected and dazzling victory, and the resulting jubilation 
served to bury some questionable aspects. 

Within the next few days the warships of various other Powers began 
to amve at Manila, and there assembled a German fleet under Vice-Admiral 
von Diederichs and a British fleet under senior Captain Chichester. Admiral 
von Diederichs questioned the American action, which was his prerogative 
according to the then still tacitly accepted International agreements or 
International Law as promulgated by the Concert of Europe. It was the 
established right of every Great Power to be explicitly informed of any con- 
templated political change in any part of the earth, and to be given ample 
time to enter its objections and counter-proposals in every disagreement be- 
tween any other nations, before any nation made any aggressive move. 

The German fleet included some large and powerful armored ships and 
was superior to that of Admiral Dewey. Furthermore, the German Navy of 
this period was larger than that of America, as were also the navies of France 
and Russia. Despite this, Admiral Dewey assumed a highly bellicose attitude 
and in one exchange is said to have stated to Lieutenant von Hintze (later a 
foreign minister of Germany): ". , . and say to Admiral von Diederichs 
that if he wants a fight he can have it now." The reply of the British com- 
mander Chichester is said to have been equally to the point: "There are only 
two persons who know what my instructions are. One of those persons is 
myself, and the other is Admiral Dewey." 

Various writers and historians differ as to the precise words used by 
Admiral Dewey, and they were "off the record;" but there is no question 
that Admiral Dewey used the fact he was addressing Admiral von Diederichs 
through a third person to use terms such as had heretofore been considered 
inadmissible in the intercourse between representatives of nations. The 
dispute at Manila raged on for three months and on August 13, 1898, the 
day after the war had ended and before word reached Manila, Captain 
Chichester is recorded to have placed his ships between the German and 
American fleets. The Germans then withdrew from Manila fully aware that 
the established law and order of the Concert of Europe had been superseded 
by "The New Order of Freedom" of a now fully revealed British-French- 
American-Jap alliance, and that their commerce and trade in the Pacific was 
on the wane. 

Nicholas Murray Butler stated in an address delivered Sept. 1, 1940, 
at the Pamsh Memorial Art Museum, Southampton, Long Island: "Con- 
sider for a moment the progress which was making from 1898 to 1920 in the 
building of a system of world organization and international co-operation 
that should control and guide the ne"w economic forces which the Industrial 
Revolution had set at work. The purpose, of course, was to increase pros- 


perity for all peoples, great and small, and to protect the foundations of 
international peace through international co-operation. . . Immediately, 
the progressive and liberal forces of the world rallied to respond to that 
appeal. . . It was the influence of the American delegation which gave to 
the first Hague Conference of 1899 the measure of success it attained. . . 
"The Spanish-American War in 1898 was absolutely unnecessary, and if it 
had not been insisted upon by the belligerent press, aided by numerous in- 
fluential leaders of opinion, including Theodore Roosevelt, Cuba would have 
become free without any armed hostilities whatsoever. The cost to the people 
of the United States of that unnecessary war is quite appalling, since highly 
organized and efficient lobbies have provided for a system of pensions to 
persons whose relation to the war was only nominal, which have already 
amounted to tens of millions of dollars and will continue yet for a long gener- 
ation. Isolation is the last thing of which the American government and the 
American people can be accused. . . "It is therefore obvious and of record 
that the American people were betrayed by the failure of those who were 
chosen to public office in 1920." (Itis interesting to recollect that the Spanish- 
American War, whose eventual cost is here admitted as appalling, lasted a 
little over ZYi months.) 

The condemnation of the Spanish American War and of the part played 
in its making by Theodore Roosevelt and others by Dr. Nicholas Murray 
Butler is a typical example of an imperialist deprecating imperialism, of the 
pot calling the kettle black; and there are few wars that have not been later 
deplored as having been utterly futile and unnecessary by some one of eminent 
standing whose connection with the International Imperialists was as positive 
as is that cf Dr. Butler, the eminent chief of the Pilgrim's secret society of 
International finance. It all seems part of the general scheme to create con- 
fusion and contradiction in the minds of the people and so avoid disclosure 
of the highly disciplined organization cf the international financial oligarchy 
and its planned objective of eventual world domination. 

In "My Memories of Eighty Years," published 1924, Chauncey M. 
Depew records on page 270 a conversation in which Lord Rothschild offered 
Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands to the United States and stated the. 
willingness of the Spanish Government to give independence to Cuba and to 
comply with every demand the United States can make. Regretfully he 
records further: "The proposition unfortunately came too late, and Mr. 
McKinley could not stop the war. It was well known in Washington that 
he was exceedingly averse to hostilities and believed the difficulties could be 
satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, but the people were aroused to such an 
extent that they were determined not only to free Cuba but to punish those 
who were oppressing the Cubans." > 

The facts are that McKinley suppressed Spain's formal acceptance of 

American demands and asked for war the day after receiving that acceptance, 
and that it took every resource of high finance and its controlled jingo press 
to rush America into war before any resistance could be organized to oppose 
the war-makers. Mr. Depew guilelessly admits his significant conversation 
with Lord Nathan Rothschild over 25 years later when it apparently no 
longer ha? any current interest, and then this renowned after-dinner story 
teller and revered Pilgtim founder goes on to repeat the fable of why our war 
with Spain which is now accepted American "History." 

Of how "History" is made, John K. Turner states in "Shall 1 1 Be Again," 
published 1922; "Remember that for more than four years one side was 
permitted to speak and the other forced to remain silent. 'The perspective 
that only time can give,' some say, 'is necessary before the true history of 
our war can be written, and before proper criticism can be made.' But the 
end of the fighting saw a vast and complicated machine feverishly at work 
to crystallize into 'history' the story of the war as it was told to us as propa- 
ganda in the heat thereof . . ." 

Mr. Tuner refers to the activities of another great Pilgrim at the con- 
clusion of World War I on page 367: "Our illegal war in Russia was pleasing 
not only to Paris and London bankers, but to New York bankers as well . . . 
Mr. Lamont, a partner of Morgan was permitted to send an advance copy 
of the peace conditions to his Wall Street associates. While acting for the 
American people at Paris, Lamont participated in the organization of the 
China Consortium and the International Convention of Bankers on Mexico. 
So, along with the peace arrangements we find the beginnings of the "definite 
plan of international cooperation in the financing of foreign enterprises," 
advanced by Pres. Farrell of the U. S. Steel Corporation, a year before." 
(Note: It seems indisputable that this plan has been operating since 1897.) 



British approval of our entry into the new world Balance of Power was 
open and wide-spread; and the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary 
of State for the British Colonies, made this comment on the secret pact be- 
tween Britain and America: "We now see our cousins across the water enter- 
ing the lists and sharing in a task which might have proved too heavy for us 
alone." The London Saturday Review quoted: "The American Commis- 
sioners at Paris are making this bargain, whether they realize it or not, under 
the protecting naval strength of England, and we shall expect a material 
quid pro quo for this assistance ... we expect her assistance on the day, 
which is quickly approaching, when the future of China comes up for settle- 
ment ..." 

The pact between the British and American internationalists was made 
in the utmost secrecy, but many of the leading statesmen and educators of 
that day sensed what was going on, and many of the great speeches and 
articles in opposition to this fantastic conspiracy were included in "Republic 
or Empire?" by William Jennings Bryan, published in 1 899; and among these 
is a speech delivered at the University of Michigan on February 22, 1899, 
by former Congressman Charles A. Towne, in which he said in part: ". . up- 
on the decision by the American people of problems now imminent depends 
the future weal or woe of our country, and hence that of the human race for 
ages to come ... by a considerable portion of the public press the language 
of distrust of present tendencies is ridiculed as a form of hysteria or denounced 
as an attack on the Government, and that a man who ventures to raise a cry 
of warning is either charitably characterized as a fit candidate for a lunatic 
asylum or violently assailed as an enemy of his country ... It is to mix 
up in alien quarrels, which we have deprecated always and with special em- 
phasis of late, at precisely the time when by all indications they are about to 
culminate in the most colossal and destructive war of modern times." 

It would appear from the words of Mr. Towne that the treatment of 
"isolationists" has not changed in the 44 years that have passed; nor has 
British censorshipand control over American sources of foreign news changed 
in the 65 years since Lieut. E. V. Greene commented on that control in his 
"Army Life in Russia" of 1878. (See footnote next page.) 


Immediately after the nations of the world had been lined up in the 
"New Order," the long-awaited rebellion of the Chinese Nationalists broke 
out. The British organization to meet this menace functioned well and the 
cream cf the British, French, Russian, German, Japanese, American, Italian 
and Austro-Hungarian armies soon gave the Chinese a severe beating for their 
aspirations of National freedom in what was known as the "Boxer War" of 
1900. China was assessed an indemnity of $750,000,000 for her brutal aggres- 
sion, later reduced due to American intercession and renunciation of her share. 
To impress upon the Chinese the utter dissolution cf their national entity, 
the soldiers of all nations were marched through their "Forbidden City," 
thus desecrating their holy cf holies. 

"With the other Great Powers of Europe locked up in the "policy of 
encirclement" on the continent of Europe by the overwhelming sea-power 
and imposing military and commercial over-balance of the new British 
Balance of Power, there was inaugurated an era cf almost unrestricted terri- 
torial acquisition and plunder. The first was the attack and seizeur of the 
Orange Free State and the Transvaal Republic in the Boer War cf 1899- 
1902, in the face of rather feeble and futile German protest; in which a 
mobilized British force of 448,435 eventually defeated 60,000 to 65,000 Boer 

The next move was to restore the status quo cf China as the sole province 
of international finance, and with a nucleus of an overseas army released by 
the victory over the Boers to hold in check the reactions of the other European 
powers; the eviction of Russia from her warm port on the open Yellow Sea 
was inaugurated by the treaty of January 30,1902 with Japan. The Japanese 
war machine was rapidly built up with British financing and in July cf 1903 

In "Barriers Down" published in 1942, Kent Cooper, General Manager of the Asso- 
ciated Press, discloses a 20 year battle fought since the end of World War I for the right 
to give the American people the truth about the news of Europe and the world, and he 
gives it as his opinion that the control of (page 7) "the greatest and the most powerful 
international monopoly of the 19th Century" in developing international atittudes and 
prejudices has been an undisclosed cause of wars for the past 100 years; that (page 264) 
the mischief planted during the fifteen years following World War I had become too great 
for the new relationship of the Associated Press to overcome. 

He develops (page 106) that the determination of France and England to keep Ger- 
many encircled by small allied nations, was supported by Reuters and Havas with their 
own "cordon sanitaire." Havas, the allied French agency, is a subsidiary of the French 
Government; and an impressive array of practical and historical fact would indicate that 
most French governments of the past 100 years have been subsidiaries of the French House 
of Rothschild in practice if not in theory. 

Mr. Cooper states (page 21) that the account is that international bankers under the 
lead of the House of Rothschild had acquired an interest in the three leading European 
agenries (Reuter, Wolff and Havas). Reuters, whose headquarters were in Old Jewry, 
near the Bank of England, in the City, was the chief of the three. It was the staggering 
presumption of this firm that the news of the world was its own private property, to be 
withheld, to be discolored to its own purposes, or to be sold to whom and where they 
directed. Rengo of Japan was obliged to pay a territorial "Franchise" fee, plus a service 
fee for news furnished. When Rengo attempted to buy news from the Associated Press; 
Reuters assessed a "service" fee on the Associated Press for the "right" to sell news to Rengo. 


a demand was made on Russia to abandon her position on the Kwantung 
Peninsula. Russia had spent $300,000,000.00 in improvements since she had 
leased Port Arthur from Li Hung-Chang six years before, and the Jap challenge 
aroused a large measure of scorn in Russia, tempered only by the knowledge 
that this was a British challenge. (See footnote.) 

There followed several months of inconclusive diplomatic interchange, 
and then, on the night of February 8, 1904, a Japanese torpedo flotilla sped 
into the harbor of Port Arthur, and with the Russian warships brightly 
illuminated and off guard, and with a large part of the crews on shore; inflicted 
terrific damage, sinking two battleships and a large cruiser. Many will recall 
the immense jubilation of the controlled American jingo press at this brilliant 
Japanese feat, and many of those of middle-age should still have a vivid 
recollection of the overwhelming wave of pro-Japanese sentiment that swept 
this country. 

The Japs then transported nearly one-half million men over one thousand 
miles of open water and fought the two most massive engagements of modern 
times within eight months of the outbreak of the war, the battles of Liao-Yang 
and Mukden; the latter involving about 750,000 men and casualties of 130,000 
men in less than a week The Russians outnumbered the Japs, but were utterly 
crushed in a campaign of marvelous military efficiency, under the command 
of Field Marshal Oyama. The Jap ally had justified himself, and there was 
entered into immediately a new treaty in August 1905, signed concurrently 
with the signing of the Treaty of Peace between Japan and Russia, which 
bound Britain and Japan to immediately come to the assistance of each other, 
even if only one power was to attack. In the secret parts of this treaty there 
was undoubtedly included the removal of Germany from Kiaochow in the 
coming and planned World War I, and the award to Japan of the islands of 
the German Marianas, Caroline and Marshall groups stretching about 5000 
miles east and west and 3000 miles north and south across our path to the 
Philippines; thus bracketing and nullifying our position in the Philippines, 

When John Hay, in a characteristic assumption of sanctimonious hypocricy, remon- 
strated with the Russian Minister at Washington in May, 1903, stating that the inevitable 
result of the policy of aggression being pursued by Russia would be the dismemberment of 
China, Count Cassini shouted: "This IS already done. China IB dismembered and we are 
entitled to our share." 

Norman Dwight Harris in "Europe and the East," published 1926, significantly states 
of British and Japanese co-operation in the affairs of Korea after the Sino-Japanese or 
Yellow War of 1895, that the Korean finances were re-established through Sir McLeavy 
Brown, a gifted British financial expert. 

Already in 1900, with the Chinese revolution just in satisfactory solution by ioint 
action of the Great Powers; the notorious international promoter of armaments, Basil 
Zaharoff, went to Japan to make a deal by which Rothschild controlled Vickers acquired 
armament and munitions plants in Japan with that prescient foresight of war profits ahead 
which marked the career of this man of whom Lord Beaverbrook said: "The destinies of 
nations were his sport; the movement of armies and the affairs of government his special 
delight. In the wake of war this mysterious figure moved over tortured Europe." 


projecting the Japanese sphere of influence 5000 miles closer to our shores 
and making the Pacific a Japanese lake. The existence of this secret deal 
giving Japan these islands did not become known to America until Wilson 
sat down at the Peace Table at the end of World War I, and his objections 
to the various secret treaties that then came to light caused most of the 
secret deals to be revoked by the British, but this deal was not revoked. 

The affairs of the Far East were now stablilized; in the opinion of some 
Englishmen for one hundred years to come; and all eyes turned to the new 
district of dissension in Africa. On April 8, 1904, a secret treaty was signed 
between Britain and France stabilizing the relative positions of these nations 
in Africa; in plainer words, dividing Africa between themselves. Trouble 
immediately centered in nearby Morocco, an independent empire which was 
occupied by the French in accord with the treaty with Britain. Germany 
promptly protested the French action as a breach of the Madrid Convention 
of 1880, signed by 15 nations, which had defined the precise status of Morocco; 
and then to offset and meet the breach of this Convention had herself occupied 
the port of Casablanca. (See footnote.) 

From "A Short History of English Liberalism" by W. Lyon Blease published 1913 
in England, Chapter XI re Liberalism Since 1906: "In 1904 Lord Lansdowne made an 
agreement with France by which the two contracting Powers settled all their outstMMliillg 
disputes. This was intended by its author to be only the first of a serisa of international 
agreements. It was converted by Sir Edward Grey into a weapon of offence against Ger- 
many, the country upon which . . . the animosity of modem Toryism had definitely settled. 
The fortunes of Great Britain were bound up with those of Srance. The theory of the 
Balance of Power was revived every diplomatic conference was made a conflict "between 
France and Great Britain on the one side and Germany on the other, and in 1911 the lives 
and the wealth of the British people were endangered, not to maintain any moral principle 
or any British interest, but to promote the material interests of French financiers in Mo- 
rocco, (page 364 . ) 

"When Germany proposed at a Hague Conference, that international agreement 
should abolish the system of destroying private property at sea, Great Britain refused 
even to discuss the point . . . The right to destroy her commerce was our most powerful 
weapon against her and as our peace policy was determined by our war policy, we pre- 
served this relic of barbarism. The inevitable consequence of our diplomacy was to give 
German Jingoism an irresistible argument for the increase of the German Fleet. The 
increase in the German Fleet was described in threatening language by Mr. Churchill, 
and was matched by an increase in our own . . . There may have been information in the 
possession of the Foreign Office which justified this persistent hostility towards Germany. 
That country may have been animated by some desire to destroy our commerce, or to 
appropriate our Ciolonies. So far as we are allowed by our governors to learn any facts at 
all, there is no more than a shadow of a foundation for such a nassumption. Up to the end 
of 1912 we were bound straight for a conflict, of which not one Englishman in ten thousand 
knew anything definite, and not one in a thousand knew anything at all. (page 365.) (Note 
that this was written before World War I, published in 1913.) 

"It is not the business of Great Britain to dictate to established Governments, or to 
go to war with them for the better regulation of their internal affairs. Nor is it the business 
of a British Government to refuse to make agreements with any foreign Government for 
the management of matters in which they are jointly concerned. But it is the duty of a 
British Government not to corrupt its own people by involving itself intimately with a 
Government whose methods are not only diierent but are utterly alien from its own. An 


In order to arrive at an amicable settlement, a conference of the Powers 
was called at Algeciras, lasting from January 16th to March 31st, 1906. The 
British-French oligarchy passed the initiative at Algeciras to President 
Theodore Roosevelt, who through Ambassador White informed Germany in 
harsh and unequivocal terms to get out of Casablanca, that America would 
not tolerate any German port on the Atlantic. Thus the pact of the Pacific 
was extended to the Atlantic and our partnership in the British Balance of 
Power asserted in no uncertain terms. America forced virtually complete 
recognition of French pretentions and of the division of Africa between 
Britain and France. The financial oligarchy purchased Italy's vote at this 
conference against her German ally, by awarding Tripoli, then a Turkish 
province, to Italy; and promising British aid in its capture. 

It is an interesting coincidence that Theodore Roosevelt proposed the 
nomination of John Hays Hammond for vice-president of the United States 
on the Republican ticket of 1908. Mr. Hammond was one of the four men 
sentenced to death in 1896 as a result of the Jameson Raid in South Africa, 
an effort to seize territory for the British Empire. Cecil Rhodes paid an 
indemnity of $250,000.00 to free Hammond and his brother, Col. Francis 

With the African difficulties settled (perhaps for one hundred years) the 
scene flashed to the "Middle-East." Russia, balked in her efforts to attain 
a foothold on open water in the Near-East and in the Far-East, was now 
attempting to penetrate to the Persian Gulf. She had gradually occupied the 
northern half of Persia, while Britain had occupied most of the southern half 
to resist her, with a small neutral zone between. In order to meet the Russian 
menace, the British -French oligarchy decided to subsidize a certain section of 
the Russian Government, and a loan was arranged in April, 1906, of which 
a British writer(*) said: "The part played by the Foreign Office in advising 
the City is not easy to ascertain, but no one can doubt that our financial 
magnates were perfectly conscious of co-operating with the Foreign Office 
when they undertook to lend money to the Russian Government." The 
purpose of the loan was to strengthen the hand of those elements in the 
Russian Government favorable to International Finance, and to halt a grow- 
ing tendency to an understanding with Germany. 

alliance with France is bad only in so far as it is turned into a combination against Ger- 
many. An alliance with Russia is in itself unnatural and horrible." (page 367.) 

These words written in 1913 by a Liberal Britisher about Britain apply with surpris- 
ing exactness to the extent of the understanding and knowledge of the average American 
citizen as to why the United States is at war 30 years later. 

(*)Bertrand Russell in "Justice in War-Time" (p. 168), published by The Open Court 
Publ. Co. in 1917. 


The same British writer goes on to say: ". . . incidentally, we could 
not but help the Russian Government in suppressing the Duma, in recon- 
quering Poland, and in depriving the Finns of the liberties which the Tsar 
had sworn to defend. . ." As a result of the British subsidy, the first Duma, 
whose probable pro-German leanings were greatly feared, lasted only ten 
weeks from May 9 to June 22,1906. Although the Russian Emperor apparent- 
ly was not in accord with this suppression of Russian liberty, its consequences 
eventually cost his life. Nor did the Anglo-Russian Agreement of August 31, 
1907, made on the basis of the loans of the British and French bankers, end 
Russian pressure. 

In November, 1910, Russia and Germany concluded the Potsdam Agree- 
ment, giving Russia a free hand in Persia. The same British writer states of 
this: "From this time on, we became completely subservient to Russia in 
Persia, since we lived in terror of a rapprochement between the Tsar and 
the Kaiser." As usual the public was totally unaware of the wider scope of 
the power politics involved and accepted the stock tale of Persia taken over 
by the two adjacent powers due to discord in Persia itself. 

The British took a peculiarly artful advantage of the public ignorance 
in America in this instance in having the new British controlled government 
of Persia (the Shah and his government had fled to Russia) appeal to the 
American Government to assist it in regenerating the finances of Persia, and 
so help it to restore order and restore the independence of Persia. The success 
of this superficially plausible and highly commendable undertaking would 
of course have meant complete and final defeat of the last Russian hope for 
access to open water, the dream of centuries. 

Russian antagonism to this splendid and humane objective was then 
thoroughly capitalized and exploited with the aid of alleged American finan- 
cial experts, causing wide-spread indignation in America. The British-French 
loans to Russia had at this time reached vast proportions, as indicated by 
subject matter from the "Pan-Germanism" of Prof. Usher quoted heretofore; 
and this, together with the storm of American hostility, raised the weight of 
the Russians allied with the International Financiers so as to cause Russia 
to recede from her stand; giving to British diplomacy another mighty victory 
in the policy of encirclement. (See footnote.) 

The foundation for The Great War, which had been started on May 1, 
1898, was now nearly ready. Germany had made many other frantic efforts 

Of the part played by Britain in the conflict of 1907-1912 with Russia which followed 
their agreement of August 31, 1907, to divide Persia between themselves, and which added 
much to the misery and poverty of the people of Persia, Mr. Arthur Bullard stated in an 
article which appeared in the Century Magazine for December, 1915, on "The British 
Foreign Policy and Sir Edward Grey": "From a humanitarian point of view the British 
record in Persia is the blackest in recent history. It is on a par with their Chinese opium 
war and their ultimatum to Portugal in 1790." 



to evade the iron circle slowly closing about her national existence. The 
most outstanding was her effort to overcome a large part of British supremacy 
on sea by by-passing the Suez Canal with a railroad in Turkey to the Persian 
Gulf, the so-called Berlin to Bagdad Railroad. Although permission to build 
this line had been obtained from Turkey in the fall of 1899, shortly after the 
nullification of the Concert of Europe by the new British Balance of Power, 
she had been halted again and again by threat of war, and had not finished 
it by the outbreak of war in 1914. 

The Berlin to Bagdad Railroad in general involved only an extension cf 
about nine hundred miles to existing railroads, it was located entirely in 
Turkey and was being built with the full consent cf that country. In the 
fifteen years from 1809 to 1914, the Balkans were called the sore spot of 
Europe, simply because of the jockeying with this railroad. The notorious 
agent provocateur of war, Sir Basil Zaharoff, was an active figure in the 
secret diplomacy of Europe in this period. One writer has said of this Greek- 
French super-salesman of the armament plants of International Finance, and 
British nobleman, that "His monument is the graves of millions; his epitaph, 
their dying groans." (See footnote.) 

The principal reason for the frenzied secret diplomacy and bloodshed 
to halt this railroad was that it would have been a short-cut from Berlin to 
the East and India, by-passing the tollgate of the British-French financial 
oligarchy at Suez completely; with a considerable advantage over the route 
from London to India via the Suez Canal. Lord Cranbourne, Under-Secretary 
for Foreign Affairs, in January, 1902, stated that the maintenance of the 
status quo in the Persian Gulf was incompatible with the occupation by 
any Power cf a port on those waters. British interests based their oppo- 
sition on the fact that this railway would destroy the trade that English 

Among the shadowy and mysterious figures that silently flitted about the stage of 
European power politics during the period of incubation (1895 to 1914) of the Gteat Vfer, 
figures that all were imbued with that intense "passion for anonymity" generally asso- 
ciated with the great British-French banking dynasty, waa Viscount Reginald Esher. 
Viscount Esher waa born in 1852, the son of a noted jurist and interpreter of English law, 
and died in 1930. Despite the fact that he was for forty years one of the most powerful 
statesmen in all the world, his actual position was very obscure, and his name was utterly 
unknown and has remained unknown to the American public. In a hearing before the 
Committeeon Foreign Relations of the United States Senate on January 28, 1940, it was 
developed that his whole position was derived from the fact that he waa the most secret 
confidant and counsel of the "monarchy;" and it is quite apparent that by the term "mon- 
archy" there is here meant the "King-in-Council" or Crown; or in other words the City 
and International Finance. 

Harold J. Laaki said of this man in the New Republic that he waa "for a generation 
the unnamed member of Cabinet after Cabinet, indispensable to them all and not respon- 
sible to any." There was made a plausible arrangement to give a public aspect to his 
position of most secret confidant of the "monarchy by his editing and arrangement of the 
letters and papers dt Queen Victoria. In his Journals published in limited edition and 
entitled "The Captains and the Kings Depart" he recorded on August 3, 1917, as fallows: 
"No American is likely to be killed before November. This is unfortunate, as Wilson may 
require to be steadied before then and only the death of young Americans can ensure him 


capital and English merchants had painfully built up along the Suez Route. 
An important aspect of this trade was the sale of coal to the ships of other 
nations at prices set by that English capital. 

In order to provide a coaling station for her ships on the route to her 
own inner Africa colonies, Germany authorized a German syndicate to pur- 
chase dock facilities at Agadir, an utterly unimportant town on the southern 
end of the Moroccan Coast, with no railroad connection, cut off by mountains 
running out into the desert. This was not a political penetration as the town 
itself is cut off from all the world. Nevertheless, interference was set up; and 
when the German gunboat Panther was sent to investigate, it was forced out 
of the harbor by British and French cruisers standing by their guns ready to 
fire, in one of the most humiliating episodes of modern history. This incident 
in July, 1911, received wide attention as the "Morocco Affair," and was one 
of the last preludes to The Great War. 

The outbreak of the Great War was fully expected by every government 
in the world; it took not one of them by surprise. The illusion which was 
artfully fostered in all the world that Britain was the victim of her treaty to 
defend Belgium neutrality, and of a wholly unexpected and brutal attack on 
Belgium, is evident from a sentence in a letter written to President Wilson 
by Colonel E. M. House, dated at London, Ma. 29, 1914, in which he stated: 
"Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany 
and Austria." The greater part of British sea-power from all over the world 
had been gathered in Home waters on that day; although Archduke Franz 
Ferdinand, active ruler of Austria-Hungary and leader of v he foes of Inter- 
national Finance, was not assassinated until June 28, 1914; and war was not 
to start until August 1, 1914. 

Sir Arthur Nicolson was for many years one of the foremost diplomats 
of the world. He retired in June, 1916, from the British Foreign Office. He 
can well be credited with a great part of the success of British diplomacy in 
restraining and confining the explosive economic pressure of the rapidly 
multiplying sixty millions of Germany squeezed in an area about four-fifths 
the size of the State of Texas; a pressure which erupted into World War I. 
Sir Arthur served for nearly a half-century in the Foreign Office and in nearly 
every important legation in Europe, the Near-East, the Middle-East and the 

While every other Great Power was represented by two delegates at the 
conference called at Algeciras in January, 1906, to consider the German 
protest against the Cambon-Lansdowne Agreement of April 8, 1904, which 
in effect had divided Africa and other parts of the world between Britain and 
France in utter disregard of existing agreements; Sir Arthur alone represented 
Great Britain and completely dominated the Conference. There was present 
only as an observer for British financial interests the Jewish Sir Donald 


Mackenzie Wallace. Due to the intervention of Theodore Roosevelt, this 
partition of Africa was approved by the Conference, which ended in a com- 
plete diplomatic fiasco for the Germans, with even the delegation of their 
Italian ally against them due to previous secret concessions to the Italians 
in Africa by British Finance. 

The tortuous currents and counter-currents of international machinations 
and intrigue over this period of nearly fifty years are described in intimate 
personal detail in "Portrait of a Diplomatist" by Harold Nicolson, a son of 
Sir Arthur, published in 1930. Mr. Nicolson states (Ch. XIV— The Outbreak 
of "War — p. 298-299) in effect that the events of the several days immediately 
preceding the outbreak of World War I were merely of dramatic interest with 
no practical significance; that the war was the result of cumulative inter- 
national stupidity since 1878. He further records (page 314) that his father 
wrote an article during that war expressing his indignation of the conclusion 
that Germany had started or was responsible for the war, an article which 
was refused publication. In that article, Sir Arthur Nicolson urgently warned 
that terms of oppression or humiliation of the defeated would make a durable 
or lasting peace impossible. 

The following memorandum of a conference with President Wilson on 
December 10, 1918, was made by Dr. Isaiah Bowman, one of the American 
economic experts at the Peace Conference: ". . the President remarked that 
we would be the only disinterested people at the Peace Conference, and that 
the men whom we were about to deal with did not represent their own people. 
. . The President pointed out that this was the first conference in which 
decisions depended upon the opinion of mankind, not upon the previous 
determination and diplomatic schemes of the assembled representatives. 
With great earnestness he re-emphasized the point that unless the Conference 
was prepared to follow the opinions of mankind and to express the will of 
the people rather than that of their leaders at the Conference, we should soon 
be involved in another break-up of the world, and when such break-up came 
it would not be a war but a cataclysm. . ." (Vol. 4, p. 280, Intimate Papers 
of Col. House.) 

Not only did those that "did not represent their own people" flout and 
nullify the views of President Wilson, but they also callously ignored the warn- 
ing of their own foremost diplomat, Sir Arthur Nicolson, for many years the 
feared and formidable opponent of Germany in almost every major diplomatic 
clash, and the invariable victor due to the invisible support of International 
Finance; for Philip Snowden, later a member of a Liberal British Cabinet, 
said of the peace treaty: "The Treaty should satisfy brigands, imperialists, 
and militarists. It is a death-blow to the hopes of those who expected the end 
of the war to bring peace. It is not a peace treaty, but a declaration of another 
war. It is the betrayal of democracy and of the fallen in the war. The Treaty 
exposes the true aims of the Allies." 



The common people of the world were kept in utter darkness as to the 
nature of the moves made in the great game of international power politics 
through the years, and the fact that it was a foregone conclusion that these 
moves would inevitably lead to gigantic slaughter, as forecast by former 
Congressman Towne in his speech of Feb. 22, 1899. Therefore, the outbreak 
of the Great War was to them a complete surprise, as it was also to the 
greater part of the representatives of the people in the government of the 
United States and in the government of the British Isles. The reasons given 
to the public for the war, were in general purely superficial and fraudulent. 
Belgium was a full Eritish ally before she was invaded. The treaty as to 
Belgian neutrality which was alleged to have formed the basis for British 
intervention, was non-existent. 

Specifically, the British foreign office pointed to a treaty signed April 
19, 1839, as providing a basis for mandatory British intervention. It would 
take a considerable stretch of the imagination to read into the broad general 
terms of this treaty any such mandate. The British had in the meantime 
grossly violated far more definite terms of more recent treaties again and 
again, as witness the complete disregard of the 1880 Convention of Madrid 
signed by 15 nations, in their agreement of April 8, 1904, with France, divid- 
ing all Africa with France. It is very interesting to note the artless way in 
which the British Foreign Office admitted that its foreign policy of 1914 was 
still unchanged from that of 1839, in view of the rivers of blood shed in that 
foreign policy in the intervening 75 years. 

The chicanery and deceit of international power politics was never better 
exposed than at the so-called "Peace Table" after the Great War. Herbert 
Hoover, who was a member of the American commission at Paris, tells of 
this in his article of November 8, 1941, in "The Saturday Evening Post," 
entitled "You May Be Sure I Shall Fight Shy." Mr. Wilson was stunned to 
find we had been fighting for the success of secret agreements of which the 
United States had no knowledge, some of them actually designed to check 
further political and commercial expansion of this country; such as that 
awarding the vast island chains in the Pacific to the laps so as to cut us off 
from India, China and the Philippines. Italy had been promised a definitely 


described colonial area in another secret agreement for deserting her German 
and Austro-Hungarian allies; then later was blackjacked into the war with 
the threat to make peace and let her betrayed allies deal with her alone. 
(See footnote.) 

This secret deal was retracted and Italy was given little for her 2,197,000 
war casualties. The British Government seized nearly all of the captured 
areas for itself, taking 1,415,929 square miles and allowing France a mere 
360,000 square miles for her immense casualties of 6,160,800 men(*). Italy 
was bankrupted and swept by revolution as a result, and out of this chaos 
emerged the inevitable dictator in the person of Benito Mussolini. Thus, was 
a powerful and faithful ally (and let those inclined to scoff contemplate the 
680,000 Italian dead given to the British cause), transformed into a bitter 

"The Intimate Papers of Col. House," arranged by Chas. Seymour, Provost and 
Sterling Professor of History, Yale University, and published in 1926 in four volumes, 
develop that a secret treaty covering Italy's reward for entering into World War I on the 
Allied side was finally formally signed at London on April 26, 1915, and was followed by 
Italy's declaration of war on Austria, May 23, 1915, and on Germany August 27, 1916. 

From Mr. House's notes it would appear that this secret treaty, as well as one of 
March, 1915, promising Constantinople to Russia, were discussed at an intimate dinner 
meeting at the White House on April 30, 1917 attended only by himself, Mr. A. J. Balfour 
and Mr. Wilson. It seems that Mr. Balfour did not later furnish Mr. Wilson any particulars 
or details of the secret treaties as he had promised, so that Mr. Wilson testified before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on August 19, 1919, that he had no knowledge of the 
existence of these secret treaties as a whole. ((Appendix, Vol. 3, p. 61.) 

In the appendix on page 62 of vol. 3, occurs this statement: "There are those who 
believe the President laid too little stress upon the treaties and that he should have had 
some understanding with the Allies regarding them before he committed the United States 
to war." In vol. 3, page 322, is recorded a meeting with the President of which is stated. 
"The President was especially disturbed by the Treaty of London and the arrangements 
made for the partition of the Turkish Empire. Mr. Wilson was aware of the extent to 
which Britain and France were committed to Italy by the Treaty of London . . ." Strange- 
ly, this meeting occurred January 4, 1918; and in other parts of his notes he attempts to 
explain Mr. Wilson's forgetfulness in the matter of this treaty when he testified August 
19, 1919, he knew nothing of these treaties as a whole. 

On page 50 of Vol. 3, is recorded a copy of a letter dated Jan. 30, 1918, from Mr. 
A. J. Balfour to President Wilson, in which Mr. Balfour admits the secret treaties had been 
made by Britain under the stress of the necessity of getting Italy into the war, and ex- 
presses his doubt as to whether performance of Britain of her promises to Italy would be 
for the best interests of Italy. Thus was paved the way for the expulsion of Italy from 
the Peace Conference and the change from "The Big Four" to the big three, and eventually 
to "The Big One," Mr. David Lloyd-George. 

Mr. House's record of a meeting with Walter Page, American Ambassador to Great 
Britain, on September 25, 1916, appears on page 319, Vol. 2, in part as follows: "He said 
the British resent our trying to bring about peace ... I did not think this was as ignoble 
an effortas it seemed to Page. He declares none of us understand the situation or the high 
purposes of the British in this war. I replied that we resented some of the cant and hy- 
pocrisy indulged in by the British; for instance, as to Belgium. Page admitted that the 
British would have been found fighting with France even if France had violated Belgium 
in order to reach German territory more effectively . . . 

From Vol. 3, page 41: ". . . neither the President nor House felt that it was possible 
to endanger unity with the Allies by raising a protest against the secret treaties." 

(*) Ency. Brit. 

In this atmosphere of corruption Mr. Wilson launched his proposed 
League of Nations as a successor to the former Concert of Europe in creating 
law and order among the nations of the world. In its original form, as pro- 
posed by Mr. Wilson, it reflected his idealism; but in its final form it was 
simply a fraudulent instrument to give a legal aspect to the control of the 
affairs of the world by International Finance. 

In his "Memoirs of the Peace Conference" David Lloyd George stated 
that the prospect of a mandate for Armenia and Constantinople appealed to 
Wilson's idealism and he therefore made a proposal on May 14, 1919, to the 
Council of Four which was accepted by President Wilson "on behalf of the 
United States of America and subject to the consent of the Senate thereof." 

Had the Senate succumbed to this crafty stratagem, it would have placed 
the United States at the focal point of infection of the wars of Europe, at the 
tangled crossroads of the centuries-old Russian surge towards open water and 
the German surge towards Bagdad, the Persian Gulf, the Orient and Africa. 
It would have simplified immensely the British problem of the Balance of 
Power, and made of the United States the immediate opponent of every 
European aggressor, and relieved the British Empire of this crushing load. 
Italy's dissatisfaction with the Peace Treaty, the seething ambitions of 
all the newly created buffer states to profit at the expense of each other, 
the war between Poland and Russia, the war between Greece and Turkey, 
the clash between Bolshevism and Fascism in the long and bloody Spanish 
War, and many more of the endless intrigues and hostilities that followed 
the Great War in the human cess-pool of Europe, would have involved the 
armed intervention of the United States at the expense of the American 

This situation was sensed by American statesmen and the American 
public; and the proponents of this League of Nations and of the international- 
ist group on the Democratic ticket of 1920, Mr. Cox and Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt, were buried in a landslide so deep it seemed that the Internationalist 
control of America should have been buried forever. As a matter of fact a 
great number of people neither remember the names of the candidates on 
this Democratic ticket of 1920, nor the fact that Mr. Roosevelt made over 
1000 speeches in favor of continued internationalist intervention in the 
campaign of 1920. 

The election of 1920 removed America from the British Balance of Power, 
for the succeeding Republican administrations were true to their trust and 
mandate, and this country did not re-enter a British alliance until 1933. 
With the American withdrawal, history was repeating itself, for Britain was in 
the same situation that she had been in after France was demolished in the 
Franco-Prussian war of 1871. Where she had then come under the wing of 
the Concert of Europe for a number of years until France could recover and 


Japan and America could be groomed as running mates, she now used the 
League of Nations for a number of years, until the newly formed buffer states 
reached a state of greater maturity under governments favored and supported 
by International Finance. 

Poland grew to the status of a major ally, and in the formidable British- 
French-Polish bloc there were in addition Czecho-Slovakia, Jugo-Slavia, 
Greece, Belgium and Holland. Other countries, particularly Roumania, were 
for some years the battle-ground of opposing factions in the pressure to join 
this alliance. When Hitler and Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to power 
within a few hours of each other in 1933, the battle to submerge Germany 
again was under way. One of the early American contributions was the 
"Most Favored Nation" treaty, open to any and all nations in the world, 
except only Germany, then one of our best customers. 

The peculiar ability of the arms and munitions makers to foresee war 
and to be all prepared and ready to make the profits is illustrated by an 
observation of H. C. Engelbrecht, Ph. D. and F. C. Hanighenin their "Mer- 
chants of Death" published in 1934: "Fifteen years have elapsed since the 
'war to end all wars.' Yet the arms industry has moved forward with growing 
momentum as if the pacific resolutions of the various peoples and governments 
had never existed. All these technical improvements, all the international 
mergers, the co-operation between governments and the industry bear an 
uncomfortable resemblance to the situation during the epoch preceding 1914. 
Is this present situation necessarily a preparation for another world struggle 
and what, if any, are the solutions to these problems?" 

Strangely significant, the great British industrial firm of Vickers, Ltd., 
in a major program of expansion with Rothschild financing, had entered the 
armaments and munitions field in the explosive year of 1897, at the very 
outset of the era of imperialistic expansion that brought on the Great War. 

The eventual curious conjunction of apparently unrelated and widely 
separated acts in the world of politics and war seems to be well described in 
words used by Abraham Lincoln in commenting on a political conspiracy of 
his the : "when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which 
we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different 
workmen . . . and when we see those timbers jointed together, and see they 
exactly make the frame of a house or a mill ... in such a case we find it im- 
possible not to believe that . . .all understood one another from the beginning, 
and all worked upon a common plan, drawn up before the first blow was 

The Chinese Nationalists staged another of their periodical revolts against 
the British-French oligarchy and its Japanese ally in 1926, and as usual a 
number of Americans were killed in the general uprising against the foreign 
usurpers. A large force of Marines was sent to China under General Smedley 


Butler to protect American interests. The British invited Admiral Clarence 
S. Williams, the commander of the Asiatic fleet to join them in shelling 
Nanking, the capital of the leader of the rebellion, General Chiang Kai-shek.* 
President Coolidge declined to permit the American fleet to join in this ven- 
ture, thus bringing to the attention of the whole world that America was no 
longer a robot of the International clique, and causing one of the greatest 
upsets in the history of international power politics. Sumner Welles, a minor 
career diplomat during the Coolidge administration, attracted wide attention 
to himself by resigning in protest to the Coolidge foreign policy. Americans 
generally failed to grasp the significance of the outburst of hostility, insult 
and indignity to which American tourists were subjected in France and 
England directly after this incident. 

Japanese writers had been bitterly indignant at a situation in which 
Japan had to fetch and carry at the bidding of the British-French financial 
oligarchy, had then invariably been obliged to turn over to them the fruits 
of victory, and been obliged to pay the oligarchy huge interest charges on the 
money to fight its wars. This open break in British-American relations placed 
the oligarchy completely at the mercy of the rebellious Jap factions; for, with- 
out American participation this situation in China lacked the essential flavor 
of democracy, left the oligarchy without sufficient forces to meet the rebellion, 
and opened them wide to the attack of their many internal British and 
French enemies. 

The forces they had marshalled to again bring decency and democracy 
to China presented a somewhat dismal and moth-eaten aspect in comparison 
with the forces they had marshalled to subdue to Nationalist uprising of 
1900. Then they had the assistance of the elite of the crack troops of America, 
Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, France and Japan to help them 
to subdue the brutal aggression of the Chinese. This time they made a 
shabby pretense that this was still a humane and unselfish effort to restore 
order in China and gathered together troops from what lands were still in 
their pay. They could only induce Portugal, Spain, Holland, France and 
Japan to answer their plea for help. They were obliged to sublet practically 
the entire job to Japan, and it was performed with the usual Jap snap and 
vigor. The consideration for the contract was an agreement giving Japan a 
wider participation in the commercial and political control of China, and con- 
ceding to Japan the occupation of Manchuria. (See footnote.) 

(*) See "Old Gimlet Eye" (Smedley Butler) by Lon-ell Thomas, (p. 288) chapter on 
"Treading Softly in China." 

From "Background of War" published 1937 by Editors of Fortune: "When the 
Lytton Committee made its report indicting Japan, and when China thereupon fought for 
the impositions of sanctions under Article XVI of the League, the British Foreign Secretary 
opposed the demand so eloquently and so effectively that the Japanese delegate, Mr. 
Matsuoka, told the American correspondents that Sir John Simon had said in half an hour 


In order to minimize and discount their deal with Japan, enforced on 
them under the stress of circumstances, the financial oligarchy now subsidized 
its recent foe, General Chiang Kai-shek. They financed the Chinese aggression 
against Japanese occupation and infiltration, and thereby thoroughly en- 
raged the Japs who felt that they had made an honorable deal and that they 
were now being double-crossed. International Finance had taken over the 
Japanese banking system under the treaty of 1902, and the great Japanese 
commercial expansion that then followed and which had flooded the world 
with Japanese goods, had been promoted by British capital. The wheels of 
the great Jap industrial machine slowed down with those of all the world, 
leaving the Japs with a huge interest load and rapidly falling revenue. This 
aggravated the very conditions which had been emphasized by Prof. Usher 
as a very probable cause for a Japanese war in his "Pan- Americanism" of 
1915 in that excerpt quoted heretofore (page 29). 

In this critical period the International clique was restored to power 
in the United States by the election of 1932, and the American Administra- 
tion choose in giving the British unqualified support to ignore the fact that 
the position of the British interests in China had been dependent to a great 
extent upon Japanese support since the year 1895; that the Japs could have 
made common cause with the Chinese Nationalists or with Russia at various 
inopportune times, with a certain major disaster to the British Empire; that 
this was mainly a quarrel between Japan and the British interests as to 
Japan's share of the profits of the exploitation of China. 

There was here a very elose repetition of the plausible deal made in the 
case of Persia in 1911, when the British had ejected the Shah and set up a 
subsidized government of their own, then appealed to the American Inter- 
national clique to aid them in restoring control to the Persian Government, 
thus to balk the vital Russian surge to the sea by a simple strategy. In this 
instance, the secret control of China had been in British hands since 1841; 
so they utilized a revolutionist against their own secret government and made 
him the nominal front man, then appealed to the American International 
clique to aid them in restoring the government of China to its rightful head; 
thus to balk the deal they had made with Japan by a simple strategy. 

That the British did not correctly evaluate their Jap ally at the beginning 
of their relations would appear from the ideology of Cecil Rhodes, cited 

what he had been trying to tell the Assembly for weeks. From beginning to end of the 
Manchurian incident Great Britain resisted every effort to impose upon the aggressor 
country the penalties expressly provided by the League Covenant . . . the liberal British 
review, The New Statesman and Nation, charged ruling-class perfidy. "Behind Sir John 
Simon's pro-Japanese policy during the Manchurian dispute there lay the hope in the 
minds of businessmen, who were very adequately represented in the House of Commons, 
that Japan would fignt Russia and repay our friendly encouragement in her piracy in 
China by a reasonable attitude when it came to dividing the spoils." (page 8-9.) 


hereinafter; which was written at about the stage of the first alliance with 
Japan, and which embraces in the dawning British world state "the seaboard 
of China and Japan," 

Chiang Kai-shek was forced to choose between two evils in going along 
with the British oligarchy after his defeat in 1927, but it is very obvious 
that he still has his Nationalistic aspirations, and that his open efforts to gain 
support in the United States for his dream of Chinese independence has 
caused a discordant note in his relations with the British. British dictator- 
ship over American lend-lease has given him a very shabby deal. This latter 
fact was graphically treated in a recent book "Between Team and Laughter" 
by the Chinese writer Lin Yutang. 



The ebb and flow of British Imperialism and the predominance cf the 
benign or the evil character of the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde British Govern- 
ment is definitely linked with the two major political parties of Britain as is 
readily apparent from the following tabulation of successive British Govern- 
ments within present day personal recollection: 


Prime Minister 



Benjamin Disraeli 

Conservative (Tory) 


William E. Gladstone 



Benjamin Disraeli 



William E. Gladstone 



Lord Salisbury 



William E. Gladstone 



Lord Salisbury 



William E. Gladstone 



Earl of Rosebery 



Lord Salisbury et al 



A period of confusion 

Unionists (incl. Conservatives) 


D . Lloyd George 

Coalition (Conservative majority) 


A. Bonar Law 



Ramsay MacDonald 



Stanley Baldwin 



Ramsay MacDonald 



Stanley Baldwin 



Neville Chamberlain 



Winston Churchill 


For the purpose of ready identification the Conservative Party can be 
represented with the barbed tail, horns and cloven hoof of International 
Finance, intrigue and war; while the Liberals can be conceived to bear that 
torch of freedom and liberty usually associated in the public mind with 
England itself as compared to the other countries of Europe. That this aspect 
is substantially true becomes readily apparent in noting the trend of events 
under Liberal leadership and under Conservative leadership. Not only did 
the Conservative Benjamin Disraeli disestablish the Concert of Europe, but 
he deliberately led all Europe to the brink of war in the eastern question, 
after he had incited the ferocious Russo-Turk war cf 1878. 


When his ally Turkey was defeated and cf no further use, Disraeli prompt- 
ly inaugurated the subjugation and plunder of Egypt, vassal state of Turkey. 
The penetration was by the usual formula of partly fictitious loans to dis- 
honest government and the building up of a heavy interest burden on the 
people. The subsidized Egyptian government was too weak in the face of 
the Nationalist revolution against this depredation of the public treasury, 
and the British-French oligarchy was then obliged to enter the civil war to 
protect their loans; thus inaugurating the long Egyptian war which was not 
settled for twenty years. 

This brewing war upset the Disraeli government; and his Liberal suc- 
cessor, William E. Gladstone, greatest of all British statesmen, proceeded to 
withdraw from the Egyptian war. He commissioned the renowned agent of 
Imperialism, Gen. Chas. G. Gordon, to arrange for evacuation of British 
forces and British interests from the Egyptian Soudan. However, Gen. 
Gordon proceeded to act in complete contradiction to the prime minister's 
orders and in obvious accord with that ingenious dictum of Imperialism cited 
heretofore from the "Laws of England": "An executive or administrative 
act of a subject, though in the first instance done without authority of his 
Sovereign, will have all the effect of an Act of State if subsequently ratified." 
Thus had General Gordon met with success in his illegal venture, that success 
in itself would have upset the government opposed to it, and raised to power 
a government prepared to ratify it. Unfortunately, for General Gordon, he 
had climbed out far on a limb; and the Liberal Government, accustomed to 
this sort of trickery, simply left him in the lurch, with the result that he was 
killed in his venture; having vainly waited for months at Khartoum for succor. 

In 75 years, from 1868 to 1943; in the entire span of life of our oldest 
living generation, there have been only two true Liberals to attain leadership 
of the British Government, William E. Gladstone and J. Ramsay Mac- 
Donald. During the period of 1906-1916, indicated in the foregoing tabulation 
as a period of ostensible confusion in national politics, the foreign power 
politics of Empire were not at all in a state of confusion; for, in that dexterious 
and chameleon-like ability to change its nature untrammeled and unhindered 
by any limitations of any Constitution, the foreign policy of Britain was cen- 
tered not in any government, but was centered in the hands of only one man, 
Viscount Edward Grey, who became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs 
in December, 1905, and retained that office for an incredible ten years until 
December, 1916, in a virtual dictatorship. 

The views of Mr. William E,- Gladstone, four times Prime Minister of 
Britain on a Liberal platform up to 1894, are very significant as he was the 
last Liberal Prime Minister before the Imperialist rampage that started in 
1897 and continued up to World War I in 1914. The following quotations 
and notes are all from "The Life of William Ewart Gladstone", by John 


Morley, published in 1903: "When England rejected the Berlin memorandum 
of May 13,1876, in the Eastern Question which had been adopted by Russia, 
Austria, Germany, France and Italy — Gladstone said of Disraeli: 'His govern- 
ment is supposed now to stand mainly upon its recent foreign policy: the 
most selfish and least worthy I have ever known ..." (Book VII, Ch. IV) 
A letter to the Duke of Argyll: '. . Dizzy's speech (so I call him with all 
due respect to the peerage), gave me a new light on his views. He is not 
quite such a Turk as I had thought. What he hates is Christian liberty and 
reconstruction. He supports old Turkey thinking that if vital improvements 
can be averted, it must break down; and his fleet is at Besika Bay, I feel 
pretty sure, to be ready to lay hold of Egypt as his share. So he may end as 
the Duke of Memphis yet.' Another letter to the same: 'I have a strong 
suspicion that Dizzy's crypto-Judaism has had to do with his policy. The 
Jews of the east bitterly hate the Christians.' Morley's note: Mr. G, how- 
ever, found comfort in the thought that by the agitation two points had been 
gained: the re-establishment of the European Concert in the conference of 
Dec, 1876, and extrication from a disgraceful position of virtual complicity 
with Turkey. (See footnote.) 

While Mr. Gladstone was definitely opposed to rapacious Imperialistic 
aggression and expansion, he was nevertheless an Imperialist. However, 
his imperialism was aimed at reconstructing and integrating and strengthen- 
ing the existing empire, and he spent an immense amount of effort in attempt- 
ing to arrive at a settlement in the dissatisfaction of the Irish; and had his 
lead been followed and had he been given full support, it is a reasonable 
assumption that Ireland would still be a full and loyal member of the British 
Colnmonwealth of Nations. He admitted that at one point in his career he 
had held with those favoring disintegration of the Empire. In 1872 he stated 
that opinion in the country was at last rising against disintegration. "In my 
judgment," he said, "no minister in this country will do his duty who neglects 
any opportunity of reconstructing as much as possible our colonial empire ..." 
(Book VI, Chapter VIII.) 

The Liberal government of Gladstone was followed by twenty years of 

Although Mr. Disraeli had been baptized in the Church of England, he amazed and 
shocked one of his friends after coming out of a sitting in which he had defended the Church, 
by murmuring: "It is curious, Walpole, that you and I have just been voting for a defunct 
mythology . . ." His friend waa further taken aback when Dizzy declared that there is no 
English nobility: "We owe the English peerage to three sources: the spoliation of the 
Church; the open and flagrant sale of its honours by the early Stuarts; and the borough- 
mongermg of our own times. When Henry IV called his first Parliament, there were only 
twenty-nine temporal peers to be found. Of those twenty-nine only five remain." Then he 
explained that the only pedigree of long civilization was that of the House of Israel and 
that his family was far older than theirs. (Disraeli by Andre Maurois, Ch. IV) D. Apple- 
ton & Co. 1929. 

Disraeli found pleasure in repeating a maxim of Cardinal de Retz: "Everything in 
the world has its decisive moment; the crowning achievement of a good conduct of life is 
to know and pick out that moment." 


unbridled imperialistic aggression and expansion under unbroken Con. 
servative control, ending in the gigantic slaughter of World War I with its 
total casualties of 37,494,186, and its 8,538,315 dead. These years of in- 
cubation for World War I (1897-1914) included the imperialistic aggression 
and seizure of the South African republics, the imperialistic "Boxer" war, 
the imperialistic Russo-Japanese War, the division of Africa to compensate 
France for British seizure of South Africa and Egypt, the Russo-British 
Persian imperialistic division, and the Balkan Wars in the interest of British 

The mantle of dictator of the foreign policy of the Conservatives and of 
the British-French financial oligarchy, dropped by Sir Edward Grey in 1916, 
was assumed in large measure by Winston Churchill, whose start in high 
Conservative office occurred in 1903 in the reactionary Lord Salisbury govern- 
ment. In 1910, during the "Unionist-Conservative" period of 1906-1916, he 
rose to the office of Home Secretary, authoritatively stated to be the most 
powerful office in the British Empire, exercising the power of life and death 
in criminal cases; which under much vaunted English law are not subject 
to appeal, giving the powers-that-be a leverage against persons convicted of 
a political crime deemed possible by the uninformed only in the "Dictator" 
countries. (See footnote.) 

He conducted certain secret negotiations usually associated with the 
Foreign Office, together with Lord Haldane, with Germany and Austria- 
Hungary in October, 1911, after he had just been made First Lord of the 
Admiralty. He arrived at certain very important decisions as to conduct of 
the Dardanelles campaign, and admitted full personal responsibility; having 
apparently conducted this campaign without approval or disapproval of his 
government. The Dardanelles debacle enforced a temporary interval in his 
positions of arbitrary power, but in June, 1919, he was made Minister for 

From "Laws of England ' Vol. 6, page 348, art. 499: To levy war against the King 
in his realm is treason, and this provision has been held to extend to cases of riot for various 
purposes. Thus a riot for the purpose of pulling down brothels or breaking open prisons 
has been held to be treason. And where riots took plam in support of a prisoner under- 
going trial, and Dissenting meeting-houses were pulled down, and other acts of violence 
committed, it was held to be treason. So also a not in order to attain an object of a general 
or public nature, such as repeal of a law, through intimidation and vlolenm, has been held 
to be treason . . . Note (m) : Insurrections by force and violence to raise the price of wages, 
■ . . or to redress grievances real or pretended, have all been held levying war." 

Page 352, art. 608 — The punishment for a person convicted of treason is hanging. 
But the Sovereign may by warrant . . . , direct that, in place of hanging, the head of the 
convicted person shall be severed from his body whilst alive, and may also direct and order 
how the head and body are to be disposed of. 

Except for the privilege of this singular choice in the manner of dispatching one con- 
victed, the Sovereign appears to be fully as impotent as described in the words of Andrew 
Carnegie "in theory still a real monarch, although in reality only a convenient puppet, 
to beused by the cabinet (the City) at pleasure to suit their own ends;" not able even to 
exercise the power of pardon that is a prerogative of a governor of an American state and 
of the President of the United States. 


War and Air. In this position he engaged in the persecution of the Irish 
which was made the subject of investigation by an American commission, 
which in its report charged that in this persecution and suppression the Irish 
had been subjected to indescribable brutalities and torture, and had been 
illegally deprived of their civil rights; and this report was a big factor in 
obtaining freedom for Ireland and in restoring a Liberal Government to Britain 
after a lapse of 29 years, in the person of Ramsay MacDonald. In 1935 the 
Conservatives were back in power and with them the period of incubation 
for the next world war was under way. 

Few Americans comprehend the immensity of the British Empire, its 
land area just before this war nearly 17,000,000 square miles, not including 
the semi-colonial area of China; an area nearly six times greater than is the 
area of the United States itself. To the 1,415,929 square miles taken by 
Britain from Germany at the conclusion of World War I, there was added 
by purely Imperialistic aggression another incredible 1,145,764 square miles 
in the period from 1925 to 1938, years in which Americans generally were 
under the impression that everything was peaceful and quiet except for the 
belligerent and snarling dictators of Europe and the purges of Russia. Not 
only did Britain greedily seize 75% of the German colonies in utter disregard 
of the needs of her own allies and despite her already vast hegemony over a 
great part of the earth, but she was not prepared to stop there; the program 
of expansion was pressed year after year to the certain end that the over- 
populated areas of the world, deprived of any reasonable outlet for their 
products, would sooner or later rise in fury in a new and greater war. In 
1939, the Germans seized about 100,000 square miles of Poland, but the 
British in that year seized 218,259 square miles in other parts of the earth. 

Dividing the land ruled by the British Empire at this stage by the 
49,000,000 population of the British Isles would give each Britisher a theoreti- 
cal national interest in 120 times more land than had each German. Just 
before the war with Poland, Germany, greatest all-white nation on earth, 
had 104,133,000 people,* crowded into an area of less than 300,000 square 
miles. The entire British Empire had about 68,000,000 white people, ruling 
nearly 17,000,000 square miles of the earth's surface. We are now the victims 
of a grotesque and fanciful contention that the freedom and liberty of the 
United States is inextricably intertwined with the continued domination of 
these few Britishers over nearly one-third of the earth's surface; that our 
own safety is dependent on the protection extended over us by the illusive 
power of the great British Commonwealth of Nations; that our own mighty 
and compact and unified country with 135,000,000 people living in early the 
finest and most productive 3,022,387 square miles on earth, cannot continue 

(*) 1939 population as per Rhitakers British Almanac, 1941 — Eliminated from later 

to exist and to protect itself without the sheltering "umbrella" of the 68,000,000 
white people of the British Empire scattered all over the face of the globe; 
their strength dispersed in the task of keeping the 435,000,000 colored subjects 
of the Crown under control. 

As Winston Churchill ingenuously assured the American people: "Give 
us the tools and we will do the job (for you!)". That was in 1940, and the 
inspired press in that year was filled with the erudite discussions of pseudo 
military experts as to a forthcoming British invasion of Europe in 1941. The 
ways and words of International Finance are indeed wonderful. 

The method and manner of British territorial growth and of British rule 
of their colored subjects is apparent from matter printed in the Congressional 
Record of March 4,1941. From the New Leader, an organ of the Independent 
British Labor Party, the following is quoted: ". . . only a little more than 
a year ago the British Government annexed, by order in council, 100,000 
square miles to the British Empire. This was done in February, 1937, in 
south Arabia. It was done in defiance of treaties of long standing. It was 
done contrary to pledges solemnly given in the House of Commons. " 

There was further given from The World Review, a British publication, 
an explanation by St. John Philby that the desire to acquire new oil fields 
led the British to commit this type of aggression, and he described the tech- 
nique by which the job was done. He said: "That aerial bombing is freely 
used by the Aden administration is not denied by the Government. It is 
actually defended by those responsible for it, as a rapid and humane method 
of keeping peace in the outposts of the Empire." He developed further that 
the same method of keeping peace has been used by the Royal Air Force on 
many occasions along the northern border of India. 

It is interesting to note that these methods of "pacification" were in 
use at least two years by the British before the Germans used them to "pacify" 
Poland and London. 

Of the situation in India after the last war, Will Durant, in "The Case 
for India" published in 1930, states: "It was Woodrow Wilson who started 
the Indian Revolution. Did he know what he was doing when he scattered 
over every land his ringing phrases about democracy, self-government, and 
the rights of small nations? In every country — in Egypt and Near East, 
in China and India — there were ears waiting for those words as the signal 
to revolt . . . Were not the allies winning, and destroying the last autocracy 
in Europe? Was not the whole world now safe for democracy?" He further 
duscussed the brutal massacre of Amritsar on April 13, 1921, which touched 
off the Revolution of 1921, in which Brigadier General Dyer ordered his men 
to fire into a crowd of 10,000 Hindus "until all the ammunition the soldiers 
had with them was exhausted." General Dyer personally directed the firing 


towards the exits where the crowd was most dense: "the targets; he declared 
were 'good'." (p. 134). The massacre lasted over ten minutes. When it was 
over 1500 Hindus were left on the ground, 400 of them dead. Dyer forbade 
his soldiers to give any aid to the injured, and he ordered all Hindus off the 
streets for twenty-four hours, prevented relatives or friends from bringing 
even a cup of water to the wounded who were piled up on the field. It 
developed that these 10,000 people had entered an enclosure known as 
Jalianwala Bagh to celebrate a religious festival and the General had shot 
them all in the erronious view this was a political meeting. This did not 
feaze General Dyer and in the succeeding revolution the sadistic tortures 
inflicted upon hundreds of innocent victims exceeded those of medieval 
times (see page 135 of the above). 

Is there anything significant in the fact that these Indian outrages were 
perpetrated under the direct jurisdiction of Minister of War and Air Winston 
Churchill? That the news of this reign of terror was kept from Parliament 
for six months? That General Dyer was presented with a cash award of 
$150,000.00 for his prompt and effective action despite wide-spread indig- 
nation in England? 

Among the principles laid down by Woodrow Wilson for which the 
United States was alleged to be fighting in World War I, were the self-deter- 
mination of suppressed minorities, the freedom of the seas, and open cove- 
nants openly arrived at. These were precisely the principles which Inter- 
national Finance was fighting against; but, if Woodrow Wilson presumed to 
enter the war on their side in the mistaken idea he was fighting for these 
things, they had no objection until the war was won. Then these principles 
were roughly over-ridden and cast aside by the leading allied statesmen in 
terms of open ridicule and contempt. Clemenceau called the Wilson "ideals" 
a joke on all humanity. 

Again we are fighting the war of the Conservatives and of International 
Finance and of the City in the deluded pursuit of the very same idealistic 
objectives, resurrected and renovated and sweetened with the "Four Free- 
doms" and the "Charter of the Atlantic." Will these idealistic objectives be 
achieved with the winning of the war this time? Ifes the leopard changed his 
spots? I n the words of one American (who has himself failed to do so) : "Let's 
look at the record." Winston Churchill has been in many important respects 
the principal agent of Conservatism and of International Finance for nearly 
thirty years. He differs from his American collaborators in one distinct and 
definite respect — he does not sail under false colors. He has stated his posi- 
tion in clear and unequivocal words. He has stated that the "Four Freedoms" 
and "The Charter of the Atlantic" do not apply to "Those owing allegiance 
to the British Empire." He has further stated that the British Empire has 
been built by the sword and will be maintained by the sword. 


The principles and purposes of the British Empire, the reasons for 
which it was conceived and for which were expended vast rivers of sweet 
and blood and tears in that process of building it by the sword, were laid 
down in these words by Benjamin Disraeli: "Gain and hold territories that 
possess the largest supplies of the basic raw materials. Establish naval bases 
around the world to control the sea and commerce lanes. Blockade and starve 
into submission any nation or group of nations that opposes this empire 
control program." 

Winston Churchill, Conservative heir to the principles and methods of 
that greatest of empire builders and greatest of Conservatives, Benjamin 
Disraeli, stoutly affirms those principles and those methods of his illustrious 
predecessor. Mr. Gladstone stated: ". . I was tenaciously opposed by the 
governor and the deputy-governor of the Bank, who had seats in parliament, 
and I had the City for an antagonist on almost every occasion," (Mr. Glad- 
stone and the Bank — Appendix Book 1 — Morley). That City, THE City, 
Citadel of International Finance, controls not only about half of the basic 
raw materials of all the earth directly, but also has an immense indirect 
influenceover most of the rest of the basic raw materials of the world through 
its subservient financial interests. 

Among the principal provisions outlined in the Atlantic Charter is that 
of access for all nations to essential raw materials and world trade for their 
economic prosperity, coupled with "Genuine Freedom of the Seas." The 
mines, the railroads, the utilities, the plantations, the raw materials, of South 
America, China, India, Africa, in fact practically of all the world, are con- 
trolled by the City. Who will determine what is a fair price at which the 
nations of the world are to have access to these sources of raw materials, 
ownership of which is in the hands of International Finance. That price was 
a big part of the argument which has brought on World War I and World 
War II. David Lloyd George stated in a speech at Plymouth on January 8, 
1910: "We do most of the business of the world. We carry more international 
trade — probably ten times more — than Germany. Germany carries her own 
trade largely. The international trade is ours. Well, we do not do it for 
nothing. As a matter of fact, our shipping brings us over a hundred millions 
(pounds) a year, mostly paid by that wretched foreigner. I'm taxing the 
foreigner for all I know. . . You've heard a good deal of talk here, probably, 
about the exportation of capital abroad. There is no way in which we make 
the foreigner pay more. We get the foreignerin four ways by that. The first 
way we leave to Lord Rothschild . . ." (Better Times, published 1910). 

It should be clear that this immense predominance in the business of 
the world and of the seas was not just due to a little British luck; that the 
control of the port facilities of the world, the British Navigation Acts, and 
other methods of restriction of the commerce of nations, backed by a fleet 
able to make them stick, was a potent factor. This predominance over the 


trade of the world is the life and the reason for the British Empire and Mr. 
Churchill is on record that there will be no change "incompatible with the 
status quo" of the British Empire. 

In 1898, General J. B. Weaver stated in a speech: "The thing calculated 
to wound our pride in connection with the two speeches (by President Mc- 
Kinley and by the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain), is the fact that the Right 
Hon. Englishman spoke first and blazed the way in these recent discoveries 
concerning the ways of Providence with imperialism. Note the similarity of 
thought. 1 1 is marked and striking. It would seem there is an entente cordiale 
existing between the two governments which the people know nothing about. " 

It is quite evident there is again an entente cordiale existing between 
the two governments which the people know nothing about; an agreement 
in violation of any principle of open covenants openly arrived at; an agree- 
ment without sanction of the people of the United States or of their repre- 
sentatives in Congress. This would appear in part from a speech at Indian- 
apolis by Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox on October 1, 1941, in which he 
stated that the "great peace-minded, justice-loving" powers — the United 
States and Great Britain — which are "lacking in any desire for personal 
aggrandizement" must join forces for at least 100 years to produce "by force 
if need be" an effective system of international law. He went on to say that 
the British and American navies "ARE sweeping the German pirates from 
the North Atlantic" and "eventually we shall lock Nazi Germany up in an 
iron ring, and within that ring of sea-power she shall perish." Here is a fairly 
good outline of a small part of that unquestionable secret agreement which 
accords with the course of events in the two years since that speech was made. 
Here is an open admission that we were already engaged in active combat 
over two months before the great surprise at Pearl Harbor. The previous 
flat statement of the Administration that it would not permit the British 
Empire to be defeated, that it was prepared to fight for the preservation cf 
that Empire, added to events that have since occurred, indicate that this 
secret agreement is one making us a junior partner in the British Empire, 
the role lost by France. 

The British Empire, whose ships have heretofore carried nearly 90% of 
American foreign trade through the years,* as well as that of other countires, 
could not exist if any other powerful nation was permitted "Genuine Free- 
dom of the Seas" or unrestricted access to the world's sources of raw ma- 
terials, except in the limited nature of a junior partner prepared to pay for 
partial participation in rivers of sweat and blood and tears. The only reser- 
vation originally made by the Allies in accepting Mr. Wilson's Fourteen 
Points, was complete liberty as to interpretation of the phrase "freedom cf 
navigation upon the seas." 

(*) See World Almanacvarious years. 



As developed herein from many aspects and from many authoritative 
sources, the functions of the British Parliament are restricted largely to the 
local and domestic affairs of Great Britain itself; and the parliaments of the 
four dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Union of South 
Africa are likewise confined to similar functions in their own countries. Thus, 
the 68,000,000 white people of the British Empire have forms of government 
which allow a nearly democratic form of administration of their own internal 
affairs, and this provides the stage-setting of Democracy behind which oper- 
ates the secret "Sixth Great Power of Europe." The other 435,000,000 
people of the Empire are subject to that provision of the laws of England 
which decrees: ". . Nor can the Crown, by proclamation or otherwise, make 
or unmake any law on its own authority apart from Parliament, except in 
colonies to which representative institutions have not been granted." (See 
the "Laws of England" by the Earl of Halsbury, Vol. 6, page 388, art. 582). 
(See footnote.) 

The colored people of the British Empire, comprising 87% of the total 
population, are the voiceless subjects of the international financial oligarchy 
of 'The City" in what is perhaps the most arbitrary and absolute form of 
government in the world. This international financial oligarchy uses the 
allegoric "Crown" as its symbol of power and has its headquarters in the 
ancient City of London, an area of 677 acres; which strangely in all the vast 
expanse of the 443,455 acres of Metropolitan London alone is not under the 
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, but has its own private force of about 
2,000 men, while its night population is under 9,000. 

This tiny area of a little over one square mile has in it the giant Bank 
of England, a privately owned institution; which as is further elaborated 
hereinafter is not subject to regulation by the British Parliament, and is in 
effect a sovereign world power. Within the City are located also the Stock 

From "Laws of England" Vol. 6, page 423, art. 651: In Crown colonies, namely, 
colonies to which representative, or representative and responsible government, has not 
been granted, the right of legislation en'oyed by the Crown is usually exercised either 
through a governor, commissioner assisted by legislative and executive councils nominated 
by the Crown or by the governor or commissioner, the Crown retaining the right of veto, 
and, in most cases, of legislating by Order in Council. 


Exchange and many institutions of world-wide scope. The City carries on 
its business of local government with a fanciful display of pompous medieval 
ceremony and with its officers attired in grotesque ancient costumes. Its 
voting power is vested in secret guilds with names of long extinct crafts such 
as the Mercers, Grocers, Fishmongers, Skinners, Vintners, etc. All this trivial 
pomp and absurdity and horse-play seems to serve very well to blind the 
eyes of the public to the big things going on behind the scenes; for the late 
Vincent Cartwright Vickers, once Deputy-Lieutenant of this City, a director 
of the great British armament firm of Vickers, Ltd., and a director of the Bank 
of England from 1910 to 1919, in his "Economic Tribulation" published 1940, 
lays the wars of the world on the door-step of the City. 

That the British people and the British Parliament have little to say 
in the foreign affairs of the British Empire, and that the people of the British 
Empire must fight when International Finance and the City blow the trumpet, 
appears from the paean of praise of America by Andrew Carnegie, "Trium- 
phant Democracy," published in 1886 by that American super-industrialist 
and British newspaper publisher, in the following words: "My American 
readers may not be aware of the fact that, while in Britain an act of Parlia- 
ment is necessary before works for a supply of water or a mile of railway can 
be constructed, six or seven men can plunge the nation into war, or, what is 
perhaps equally disastrous, commit it to entangling alliances without con- 
sulting Parliament at all. This is the most pernicious, palpable effect flowing 
from the monarchial theory, for these men do this in "the king's Name," 
who is in theory still a real monarch, although in reality only a convenient 
puppet, to be used by the cabinet at pleasure to suit their own ends." (Ch. 
XVI). (See footnote.) 

In his damnation of Sir Edward Grey for the guilt for the Great War, 
entitled "Why We Are At War. A Reply To Sir Edward Grey," J. Ramsay 

From "Laws of England", Vol. 6, page 427, Sec. 8, art. 658: "By the law of the English 
Constitution (nonexistent) the Crown acts as the delegate or representative of the nation 
in the conduct of foreign affairs, and what is done in such matters by the royal authority 
is the act of the whole nation, and binding, in general, upon the-latter without further 
sanction . . . The Crown, therefore, enjoys the sole right-of appointing ambassadors, diplo- 
matic agents, consuls and other officers, through whom intercourse with foreign nations is 
conducted, and of receiving those of foreign States^ of making treaties, declaring peace 
and war, and generally conducting all foreign relations. _ Such matters are intrusted in 
general to the absolute discretion of the Sovereign, acting through the reca/ zed con- 
stitutional channels upon the advice of the Cabinet or the Secretary of Sbabe/0 Foreign 
Affairs, unfettered by any direct supervision, parliamentary or otherwise." 

Nicholas Murray Butler explained the nonexistence of a written British Constitution 
in a speech to the Pilgrims at New York on January 22, 1936, in these words: "Inasmuch 
as the Constitution of Great Britain is not fbed and definite, but is a matter of tradition 
and of habit, its rnterpretation is not by judicial voice but by legislative act. When, as 
in the Parliament Act of 1911 or as in the Statute of Westminster of 1931, a grave step is 
taken in changing the organization of the British Government, what they are really doing 
IB amending their constitution thereby. That is why they do not have judicial interpreta- 
tion of their Constitution, because not being written, not being definite, it can and must 
be dealt with as habit and necessity may require, ..." 


MacDonald, later Prime-Minister of Britain and foe of International Finance, 
wrote in part: "It is a diplomatist's war, made by about a half dozen men." 

There are on authentic record many instances where the City has acted 
not only without the consent of Parliament, but has acted in defiance of 
the wishes of Parliament and even in violation of its own solemn promises to 
the contrary of its action. From the "Laws of England" of the Earl of Hals- 
bury it appears that the City, exercising its power as the "King-in-Council" 
or "Crown" has control over both the legislative and executive functions of 
the Empire, and as Britain has no written Constitution there is no court with 
any power to temper the actions of the "Crown." (See footnote). 

Edwin J. Clapp, Professor of Economics at New York University, in his 
"Economic Aspects Of The War" published in 1915, developed the utterly 
boundless authority assumed by the "Crown" in its commands to the nations 
of the world through its "Order-in-Council," used without restraint and 
without reference to existing usage or so-called International law, by making 
new International Law to fit any situation, as required. 

The Balance of Power is a creation of this financial oligarchy and its 
purposes are as follows: 

(1) To divide the nations of Europe into two antagonistic camps of nearly 
equal military weight, so as to retain for Britain itself the power to sway 
a decision either way. 

(2) To make the leading and potentially most dangerous military power the 
particular prey of British suppression and to have the second strongest 
power on the other side. To subsidize the "Most Favored Nations" 
with financial investments, and to permit them to acquire political ad- 

The "Laws of England" by the Earl of Halsbury, recurrent Lord High Chancellor 
of Great Britain between the years 1885 and 1905, published in 1909, a massive work of 
over 30 huge volumes, states in Vol. 21, page 618, note k: "There is no rule of law which 
compels a Ministry which has lost the confidence of the House of Commons to resign 
office... In Vol. 6, page 388, art. 58,2;. The Crown is therefore a necessary party to legis- 
lation, and neither House of Parliament, whether acting alone or in conjunction with the 
other House, has a power of legislation without the Crown . . . The Sovereign is regarded 
in law as being incapable of thinking wrong, or meaning to do an improper act. Apart 
from legislative authority, which is vested in Parliament subject to certain concurrent nght8 
of the Crown, the law of the constitution clothes the person of the Sovereign with supreme 
Sovereignty and pre-eminence." 

It is clear from the above that the representatives of the people in the House of 
Commons, and the House of Lords, are utterly lacking any legislative initiative and that 
their function in such matters subject to certain concurrent rights tf the Crown is largely one 
of silent submission, and this is in accord with the conclusions of Prof. George Burton 
Adams. It clearly appears that while the Sovereign and the mythical Crown are not one, 
the virtues and authorities ostensibly vested in the person of the Sovereign pertain with 
full weight as to the Crown^and an act of the Crown is not subject to question in the Par- 
liament, as the "King Can Do No Wrong." This provides the ideal machinery of govern- 
ment for the absolute rule of the Crown, and the world dictatorship of International 
Finance of The City; and the nature of this strange structure of overnment is further 
evident is this passage from the Encyclopedia Americana — Vol. 13 (Great Britain — English 
Judaism): ". . . the Crown, as chief partner in the Jewish money lending business ... to 
secure its share of the gains . . ." 


vantages under the beneficent protection of the Sea-Power, to the dis- 
advantage and at the expense of the nations being suppressed. 

(3) To subject the continent of Europe to the "Policy of Encirclement" so 
as to keep the nations of the continent in poverty and ineffectiveness, 
and thereby prevent the growth of sufficient commercial expansion and 
wealth to create a rival sea-power. 

(4) To retain that complete control and hegemony over all the seas of the 
world, which was acquired by defeating the allied fleets of its only real 
rivals, France and Spain, in 1805; and which is artfully and subtly called 
"The Freedom of the Seas." 

(5) To shift this Balance of Power as required so as to be able to strike down 
friend or foe in the rapidly shifting scene of world power politics, in that 
inexorable ideology that demands that everything and anything must be 
sacrificed where the future welfare and expansion to the eventual destiny 
of the Empire are affected; that eventual destiny outlined by its propo- 
nents as the eventual control of All the lands, and All the peoples, of All 
the world. 

The ideology of the British Empire has been outlined in the past by 
various British statesmen and specifically by Mr. Disraeli (LordBeaconsfield). 
The modern version which has been broadened to include the United States 
as a principal in the British Empire was outlined by Cecil Rhodes about 1895 
as follows: "Establish a secret society in order to have the whole continent 
of South America, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands 
of Cyprus and Candia, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by 
Great Britain, the Malay Achipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan and, 
finally, the United States. In the end Great Britain is to establish a power so 
overwhelming that wars must cease and the Millenium be realized." 

The secret societies of the above plan apparently came to life immediately 
after the death of Mr. Rhodes in the Pilgrims of Great Britain, often used by 
British statesmen in recent years as a public sounding board; and the Pilgrims 
of the United States, the latter founded in New York City on January 13, 
1903, and listed in directories of secret societies with no indication of purpose. 
Mr. Rhodes left a fortune of about $150,000,000.00 to the Rhodes Foundation, 
apparently largely directed towards the eventual intent of his ideology. One 
admitted purpose was "in creating in American students an attachment to 
the country from which they originally sprang . . ."(*) It appears that 
organizations such as "Union Now," subversive to the liberty and the Con- 
stitution of the United States of America, have a large sprinkling of Rhodes 
scholars among their staff. 

For some years there has been evident a gradually increasing tempo in 

(*) Encycl. Brit. "Cecil Rhodes.' 

the number and the degree of the attacks on the Constitution of the United 
States under guise of an inevitable drift towards union with the British 
Empire, and on August 20,1941, Mr. Winston Churchill concluded this project 
had reached such momentum that he could afford to extend to it his blessing 
in these well-chosen words: "These two great organizations of the English- 
speaking democracies, the British Empire and the United States, will have 
to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and 
general advantage. For my part, looking out to the future, I do not view 
the process with any misgivings. I could not stop it if I wished. No one could 
stop it. Like the Mississippi it just keeps rolling along. Let it roll. Let it 
roll on in full flood, inexorable, irresistible, benignant, to broader lands and 
better days." 

The guileless implication of something spontaneous, magnificent and 
overwhelming in this movement can be caustically exposed by referring to an 
autographed copy of "Pilgrim Partners" by Sir Harry Brittain, published in 
very limited edition in 1942. The sub-title of the book is "Forty Years of 
British-American Fellowship" and one critic stated in a review of the same: 
"The Pilgrims, founded in 1902, with one section in England, and one in 
America, was described some time ago by a leading New York paper as 
'probably the most distinguished international organization in the world. 1 
Each incoming American or British Ambassador receives his initial welcome 
from The Pilgrims, and gives his first address to the peoples of Britain or 
America respectively from a Pilgrim's gathering." 

On page 113, Sir Harry records (and the capitals are his): "AT LENGTH, 
IN APRIL, 1917, DAWNED A WONDROUS DAY in Anglo-American 
history — the U.S.A. had jointed the Allies. The Pilgrims' dream of fifteen 
years at length had come to pass . . (page 115). A few days later a solemn 
service was held at St. Paul's Cathedral to mark the entry of the United 
States into the war, and the members of The Pilgrim's Club were allotted 
a place of honor under the dome, behind the King and Queen . . ." 

The Pilgrims were founded in London July 24, 1902, four months after 
the death of Cecil Rhodes who had outlined an ideology of a secret society 
to work towards eventual British rule of all the world, and who had made 
particular provisions in his will designed to bring the United States among 
the countries "possessed by Great Britain." The first officers were Field- 
Marshal Lord Roberts, President; General Lord Grenfell, Chauncey Depew, 
and Captain Hedworth Lambton, Vice-Presidents; and Sir Harry Brittain 
as secretary. The representative committee elected included Mr. Don M. 
Dickinson of Detroit, Colonel Herrick of Cleveland and Charles T. Yerkes. 
The present American officers are listed as Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, 
President; Major Elihu Church, Secretary; and Mr. Thomas W. Lamont, 
Chairman of the Executive Committee. 


Sir Harry records that he mas requested to come to New York in 1915 
by the Chairman of the American Pilgrims "in order to give him a hand" in 
welcoming Lord Reading (Rufus Isaacs). The dinner in honor of Lord 
Reading took place at Sherry's on October 1st, and was attended by 400 
representative men prominent in the banking, commercial and political life 
of the United States. In Sir Harry's words "dear old Joseph Choate" (former 
ambassador to Great Britain) presided. 

The magic number of 400, once the symbol of reigning wealth and 
privilege, appears here in a new role. Men of millions here sway the destiny, 
the life or death of their fellow citizens, with an organization which is sub- 
versive to the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States, 
an organization of which not one in one thousand of their fellow citizens has 
ever heard. The purpose of these men is completely interwoven with the 
dependence of their own invariably great fortunes on the operations of "The 
City," citadel of International Finance. Not only do these men collectively 
exert a planned influence of immense weight in utter secrecy, but they oper- 
ate with the support of the immense funds provided by Cecil Rhodes and 
Andrew Carnegie. 

The late Robert M. LaFollette, Sr., in the course of a speech in the 
United States Senate in March, 1908, asserted that fewer than one hundred 
men control the great business interests of the country. His statement 
brought forth a nation-wide storm of denunciation and ridicule, and even 
today any similar statement is invariably derided as sensationalism and as 
"crackpot." Nevertheless, Senator La Follette conclusively demonstrated a 
few days later from the Directory of Directors that through interlocking 
directorates actually less than one dozen men controlled the business of the 
country, that in the last analysis the houses of Rockefeller and Morgan were 
the real business kings of America; and on Dec. 13, 1911, Mr. George M. 
Reynolds of the Continental and Commerical Bank of Chicago, stated to an 
exclusive company of bankers: "I believe the money power now lies in the 
hands of a dozen men. I plead guilty to being one, in the last analysis, of 
those men." 

That the Rockefeller-Morgan-Aldrich machine, which was largely in con- 
trol of business and politics then, is still a potent factor over a generation 
later, should be evident from the manipulations in the presidential election 
of 1940, charged to Thomas W. Lamont, president of J. P. Morgan & Co., 
and others; which has been made the subject of a Senate investigation. 

Simon Haxey in "England's Money Lords Tory M. P.," published 1939, 
demonstrates in extensive tabulations that the peculiar inter-relationship 
and organization of the Money-Power in Britain places its control in a very 
few hands, and he quotes Mr. Hobson, who said: "Those who have felt sur- 
prise at the total disregard or open contempt displayed by the aristocracy 


and plutocracy of this land for infringements of the liberties of the subject 
and for abrogation of constitutional rights and usages have not taken suffi- 
ciently into account the steady influx of this poison of irresponsible autocracy 
from our 'unfree, intolerant, aggressive' Empire, (page 114.) 

"What part do the Colonial peoples play in the battle for democracy, 
when they themselves have no democratic rights and the British governing 
class refuses to grant such rights? The pretended defence of democracy by 
the British Conservative Party can only be regarded by the Colonial peoples 
as a monstrous piece of hypocrisy. F Britain under a Conservative Govern- 
ment gets into difficulties, we can be quite sure that the Colonial peoples will 
refuse to help us, and wherever they feel strong enough, will seize power from 
the British governing class. The whole Empire is becoming tremendously 
unstable, and any great shock is certain to put an end to a situation where 
the business men of one small island rule over a great part of the world." 
(Page 115.) 

The late Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated: ". . . financiers in reality 
took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power, 
of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relation- 
ships between one nation and another, involving international friendships or 
mistrusts . . . Loans to foreign countries are or-anized and arranged by the 
City of London with no thought whatsoever of *,ne nation's welfare but solely 
in order to increase indebtedness, upon which the City thrives and grows 
rich . . . This national and mainly international dictatorship of money, 
which plays off one country against another and which, t^v ugh ownership 
of a large portion of the Press, converts the advertisemen' of its own private 
opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer 
be permitted to render Demdcratic Government a mere nickname. Today, 
we see through a glass darkly; for there is so much which 'it would not be in 
the public interest to divulge' . . ." 

The bulwark of the British financial oligarchy lies in its ageless and 
self-perpetuating nature, its long-range planning and prescience, its facility 
to outwait and break the patience of its opponents. The transient and tempo- 
ral statesmen of Europe and particularly of Britain itself, who have attempted 
to curb this monstrosity, have all been defeated by their limited tenure of 
confidence. Obliged to show action and results in a too short span of years, 
they have been outwitted and outwaited, deluged with irritants and diffi- 
culties; eventually obliged to temporize and retreat. There are few who have 
opposed them in Britain and America, without coming to a disgraceful end; 
but many, who served them well, have also profited well. 

While the City, through its ruling power of the "Crown" and its all- 
powerful Bank of England, holds the pursestrings of the British Empire; 
the Parliament still holds the taxing power within the British Isles, and the 


disposition of the citizens of Great Britain. This accounts for the incredible 
delay of the British Empire in getting started in its wars, and there has not 
been the slightest indication that the situation at the beginning of this war, 
which did not permit the Empire to draft a citizen for service outside of his 
homeland has ever been changed. This same situation existed in the case of 
the citizens of Canada, Australia, and the Union of South Africa; with only 
New Zealanders subject to draft in the services of the British financial oli- 

Gladstone expressed his ire at the usurpation of the functions of govern- 
ment by the Bank and the City, and both J. Ramsay MacDonald and David 
Lloyd George opposed International Finance. David Lloyd George covered 
this situation with the greatest sarcasm in his "Better Times published in 
1910, presenting eighteen of hie speeches delivered 1903 to 1910, and from 
"The Peers and Public Opinion" delivered on December 17, 1909, at Wal- 
worth, there is this gem : " Whoclamored for these Dreadnoughts? I remember 
a great meeting in the City presided over by Lord Rothschild, in which he 
demanded that there should be laid down eight Dreadnoughts. Well, we have 
ordered four, and he won't pay." He had stated previously at Limehousein 
regard to this demand for more Dreadnoughts by the City: "That meeting 
ended up with a resolution promising that those who passed that resolution 
would give financial support to the Government . ," 

David Lloyd George had been a red-hot radical, but made a complete 
about-face when he seized upon the Agadir crisis, which clearly foreshadowed 
the coming war in Europe, to spread out his wares before the bankers of the 
City in his speech of July 21, 1911, at the Mansion House in the City (and 
it was a deal). His career as a Liberal was doomed to an abrupt conclusion 
shortly in any event due to a dubious financial investment which he had 
entered together with his friend Sir Basil Zaharoff on the advice of the great 
Conservative Sir Rufus Isaacs, later war ambassador to the United States as 
Lord Reading; which caused an extensive scandal. 

Eleutherios Venizelos, war-time premier of Greece; Georges Clemenceau 
and David Lloyd George were all known as the intimates and contact men of 
Sir Basil Zaharoff, and all went into eclipse in the Liberal uprising following 
the war (Encyc. Brit. — Zaharoff). David Lloyd George was obliged to re- 
sign in 1922 under a barrage of the British Liberal press demanding that 
Zaharoff be ousted from Downing Street. 

In "Zaharoff, High Priest of War", published 1934, (page 276), Guiles 
Davenport uses the term 'systeme' to designate the rule of the City, and 
indicates that following World War I it had reached a new peak in its plan 
of world domination, able to remodel Europe almost at will, omnipresent 
and ominipotent in world politics. 



In "Germany and England" by J. A Cramb, M. A, late Professor cf 
Modern History, Queen's College, London, published in 1914, is quoted: 
"Napoleon in 1809 attempted to wrench a planet from the hideous tentacles 
of this octopus, this British dominion strangling a world . . . And what was 
the stake for which England fought in all her battles against Bonaparte? 
The stake was world-empire; and Napoleon knew it well ... In the nine- 
teenth century there was a long series of wars in all parts of the world — in 
the Crimea, in India and Afghanistan, in China, in New Zealand, in Egypt, 
in Western and in Southern Africa; so that it might be said without exag- 
geration that through all these years scarcely a sun set which did not look 
upon some Englishman's face dead in battle — dead for England. I" 

The British had succeeded in destroying the preponderant French mili- 
tary might on the continent after 20 years of almost continuous turmoil and 
slaughter, in which almost every nation on the continent had been embroiled 
at one time or another; but British soldiers took little part in the fighting on 
the continent, even in the battles near the Channel commanded by the Duke 
of Wellington; for they were spread out all over the world engaged in seizing 
and occupying French and other colonial lands, and in fighting the United 
States in the war of 1812-1815. 

While the "Battle of the Nations" at Leipzig, in which British forces 
took no part, marked the end of Napoleon's control over the European 
continent, he later escaped from Elba in the historic ' ' 100 days, ' ' and hurriedly 
organized a new army. He was overwhelmed in a four day battle on June 
15th to 18th, 1815, in Belgium by an opposing force of 124,074 Prussians, 
60,467 Hannoverians and other Germans, 29,214 Belgians and Dutch, and 
31,253 British, who were largely raw recruits despite the faot that a. 20 year 
British war was just being concluded. The Battle of Waterloo is generally 
accepted as perhaps the greatest and most glorious British victory of all time; 
but much British money and few British soldiers won the 20 year war with 
France into which Napoleon did not enter as dictator until Dec. 13, 1799, 
and the 31,253 largely inexperienced British soldiers did not single-handedly 
defeat the 124,588 hardened veterans of Napoleon near the village of Waterloo 
on June 18, 1815, and thus gain for Britain almost the sole glory for the de- 


feat of Napoleon; while General Bluecher, the German victor at the gigantic 
slaughter at Leipzig, stood by in the role of spectator. 

The House of Rothschild had its headquarters in Frankfort, Germany, 
and it had through its loans to the numerous small nations of continental 
Europe at extremely high interest rates, and in some instances of additional 
premiums, built up what was widely considered the world's greatest fortune, 
capitalized by general public custom as "The Fortune," previous to the war 
between England and France. Apparently foreseeing the trend of events, one 
of the sons of the founder was sent to England to open up a branch the year 
before Napoleon was elected one of the three consuls of France in 1799. 

The financing of the war in France and the transmission of the funds 
to the troops on the continent was soon in the hands of this firm, and as this 
war: a highly dangerous operation due to the presence of fast privateers, a 
high premium was paid for this service. Actually, the transfer was said to 
have been accomplished in part by signalling the French coast by semaphore 
or heliograph, or by ordering payment in writing in the modem manner from 
the continental branches of these bankers. The result of this was that the 
money paid in by Britain staid in Britain, while the funds on the continent 
were paid out, thus bodily transferring this continental banking house to 
Britain, with all its assets greatly enhanced by the transfer and removed into 
a haven safe from the grasp of greedy European statesmen and dictators. 

When the conflict with France ended the House of Rothschild was in 
control of British finance and was the official banker of the British Govern- 
ment. This odd financial octopus was acknowledged to be in some respects 
the greatest power on earth and was designated by some writers as the 
"Sixth Great Power of Europe." Although the treaties of Europe and of the 
world were made under its dictation for 100 years, it never signed a treaty 
and it never was bound by a treaty. Its position was aptly described in the 
position of one of its agents and henchmen, Viscount Reginald Esher, as 
"indispensable to them all, not responsible to any." Despite the intense 
"passion for anonymity" of the Rothschilds, which has veiled their affairs 
in secrecy through the years; there are still a number of incidents of moment- 
ous international purport, some of them cited herein, in which their con- 
nection appears in an aspect denoting remarkable prerogative and ascend- 
ancy for what is only a private banking house. 

While the gigantic fortune of Maier Amschel Bauer, who had lived once in 
a house bearing a red shield in Frankfort, Germany, had been a potent 
factor in the politics of Europe before the year 1800, the 1943 Encyclopedia 
Americana states under the subject heading "Rothschild:" "The political 
events of 1813 raised the House of Rothschild to the important position it 
has SINCE occupied in the commercial and financial world." And further: 
". . . much intermarriage among cousins indicates the family is destined long 
to retain control of European finance." 


It was Nathan, founder the British house which plays so important a 
role in the affairs of the City and consequently in the affairs of all the world, 
who is credited with advancing this House to that commanding eminence 
of which Professor Usher stated in his Pan-Germanism of 1913: "Russia, 
Turkey, Egypt, India, China, Japan and South America are probably owned, 
so far as any nation can be owned in London or Paris. Payment of interest 
on these vast sums is secured by the pledging of the public revenues of these 
countries, and, in the case of the weaker nations, by the actual delivery of 
the perception into the hands of the agents of the English and French bankers. 
In addition, a very large share, if not the major part, of the stocks and indus- 
trial securities of the world are owned by those two nations and the policies 
of many of the world's enterprises dictated by their financial heads. The 
world itself, in fact, pays them tribute; it actually rises in the morning t> earn 
its living by utilizing their capital, and occupies its days in making the money 
to pay them interest, which is to make them still wealthier." (p. 83) 

In a carefully developed plan to attain financial control of all Europe, 
Maier Amschel established his five sons in the leading five financial centers 
of Europe; Nathan in London, Solomon in Vienna, Jacob in Paris, Karl in 
Naples, while the eldest (Anselm Maier) remained in the German head- 
quarters. Nathan had arrived in England at a very auspicious moment in 
1798, and he soon formed the depository for the vast fortune on the continent 
and its refuge from taxation; and the bloody struggle between France and 
England for world supremacy in what was actually modern World War I, 
which reduced all Europe into a vast sink of despair and bankruptcy; elevated 
the House of Rothschild to financial and political domination of all Europe 
and much of the rest of the world. 

The Naples house ended about 1855 with the death of Karl; whose son, 
Maier Karl, moved to Frankfort to assume the German house of his childless 
uncle Anselrn Maier, then 82 years old. After the death of Baron Maier Karl 
and his brother Wilhelrn Karl, it was decided to abandon the sterile German 
headquarters; the cradle of the House of Rothschild. It is interesting to 
recollect the Disraeli observation that in effect holds that no country can be 
prosperous that does not offel" prosperity to the Jews. Since 1895 the oper- 
ations of the House of Rothschild and of the City have been very unfavorable 
to Germany throughout the world. The Vienna House ended with the Nazi 
occupation of Austria, and the Paris House moved to New York in 1940. 

Maier Amschel hid down the maxims on his deathbed that all members 
of the family were always to act as one, that they choose wives out of their 
own family, that they must remain true to their orthodox religion. In ac- 
cordance, his son Jacob (Baron James de Rothschild of Paris) married the 
daughter of another son, Baron Solomon of Vienna. 

Nathan of London died in Frankfort in 1 836 and was succeeded by his 


son Lionel, who married the daugher of Karl of Naples, his first cousin. 
Baron Lionel Rothschild died in 1879 and was succeeded by his son Nathan, 
who married his cousin Emma of Frankfort, and became the first Lord 
Rothschild in 1885. Nathan and his brothers, Leopold and Alfred, died dur- 
ing World War I ; and the present head of the House of Rothschild is Lord 
Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, born 1882. The former head of the French 
House, Baron Edouard de Rothschild, born 1868, is a resident of New York 
City since 1940. 

The Annual Encyclopedia of 1868 records that Jacob had been estab- 
lished in Paris in 1812 with a capital of $200,000.00 by Maier Amschel, and 
that at the time of his death in 1868, 56 years later, his fortune was estimated 
at over $300,000,000.00, and his yearly income at about $40,000,000.00. In 
comparison it may be significant to note that there was at this time no fortune 
in all America that equalled only one year's income of Jacob (Baron James 
de Rothschild). The fortune of the Rothschild family in 1913 was estimated 
at over two billion dollars. (+) 

The biographers of the House of Rothschild record that men of influence 
and statesmen in almost every country of the world were in their pay. Some 
statesmen had the privilege of writing checks on the Rothschild bank at their 
own estimate of the value of their services. Disraeli was a very close friend 
of Lord Rothschild; and the extravagant Edward VII, acting King of England 
long before his mother died, was deep in their confidence. A large part of the 
profligate nobility of all Europe was deeply indebted to them. 

Gradually through the years the House of Rothschild has withdrawn 
from the public consciousness and gaze in the practice of a peculiar "passion 
for anonymity" to the extent that a large part of the American public knows 
little of them and that they are generally considered in a class of myth/ or 
legend. It should be quite obvious that the gigantic fortune of this family 
is still a very formidable factor in the affairs of the world. The fact that the 
international loans to the nations of the world by Rothschild are still a live 
factor would appear from the many sharp barbs thrust at the omnipotent 
Lord Rothschild in the "Better Times" of David Lloyd George, and his further 
sardonic observation that Britain made some money on World War I. It is 
reasonable to suppose that the immensity of the Rothschild fortune has 
taken it more or less out of the scope of the present heads of the House of 
Rothschild and that it is merged in the general conduct of the financial, com- 
mercial and political control of the world by the City. 

As recorded by their biographers, one of the most effective devices em- 
ployed by the House of Rothschild through the years to destroy their com- 
petitors and to discipline recalcitrant statesmen has been that cf artificially 

(*) .The Romance of the Rothschilds, Ignatius Balla, 1913. 


creating an over-extended inflation by extended speculation, then to cash in 
and let others hold the bag. This trick was worked by them at intervals 
through the years. The Bank of England is in effect a sovereign world power, 
for this privately owned institution is not subject to regulation or control 
in the slightest degree by the British Parliament. i A succinct outline of this 
situation appears in the Encyclopedia Americana under "Great Britain — 
Banking In." This privately owned and controlled institution functions as 
the great balance wheel of the credit of the world, able to expand or contract 
credit at will; and is subject only to the orders of the City, the City dominated 
by the fortune of the House of Itothschild and the policies of the House of 

The fact that British capital played an important role in the great crash 
of the American market in 1929 seems beyond question. That the over- 
extended inflation that brought on the crash could have been controlled and 
halted dead at any point in its rise by the great balance wheel of the world's 
credit seems beyond question. That the immense crash and loss in American 
securities served not only to damage and cripple Britain's then greatest com- 
petitor, but also to discipline a recalcitrant and unfriendly administration 
seems beyond question. That $1,233,844,000.00 of foreign gold(*) was moved 
out of the country in the election year of 1932 to bring further discredit to 
that unfriendly administration and to influence the election seems beyond 
question. That $1,139,672,000.00 in foreign gold was moved into the country 
in 1935 to influence an election and to recreate "confidence" and to prepare 
the American investor for a further milking in 1937 seems beyond question. 
The fact that the House of Itothschild made its money in the great crashes 
of history and the great wars of history, the very periods when others lost 
their money, IS beyond question. 

(*) World Almanac. 



The giant oriental dynasty of the House of Sassoon, opium traders from 
Bagdad, became affiliated by intermarriages with both the French and 
English branches of the European colossus of international finance, the House 
of Rothschild; the first of which occurred in 1881. The House of Sassoon is 
now headed by Sir Victor Sassoon, a frequent visitor in the United States, 
who in recent years has urged "Union Now" in a newspaper interview in 
this country. 

The history of this family is traced by Dr. Cecil Roth in "The Sassoon 
Dynasty," published in London in 1941. Already well-established financially, 
this family in 1832 broadened its sphere from Bagdad to Bombay; and there- 
after into China, Japan and the entire orient. It recently had wide control 
over the financial affairs of the orient through David Sassoon & Co., Ltd., 
of China; the Imperial Bank of Persia; E. D. Sassoon & Co., Ltd., of India; 
E. D. Sassoon Banking Co. of China and London; Arnhold & Co., Ltd., of 
Shanghai, Hankow, Tientsin, Peking, Hong Kong, Canton, Mukden, London, 
New York, and other places; the Bank of China; the Eastern Bank; the British 
Burma Petroleum Co., and other firms. Captain Derek Barrington Fitzgerald, 
a Sassoon grandson, is recorded (page 222 of the above) as a considerable 
figure in "the City," financial capital of the world. 

Li Hung-Chang, vice-roy of China until his death in November 1901, 
and agent of international finance, was reputed to be the richest man in 
China in his time; and was considered to be the owner of many great enter- 
prises financed by foreign capital through the Sassoon owned Bank of China 
and Japan. This bank was organized in 1894, the year Japan attacked China 
in the Yellow War, to function in the new political and financial alliance be- 
tween the British Empire and Japan which was inaugurated with this war. 
It was wound up in 1902, immediately after the death of Li Hung-Chang, 
and its interests were largely taken over by David Sassoon & Co.; which 
was reorganized into a limited company for this purpose in 1901. 

With the "systeme" at an all-time high in its political power in 1920, 
Sir Philip Sassoon, Chairman of David Sassoon & Co., Ltd., was appointed 
Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George. 


Sir Philip, whose mother was Aline de Rothschild, went out of office with 
David Lloyd George in the political uprising in 1922 against the influence of 
Basil Zaharoff and international finance in Downing Street; and died in 1939. 

Dr. Roth states (page 236) that "Lord Esher, sitting at the hub of the 
inner circle of English politics, wrote to him (Sir Philip) confidentially ..." 
Dr. Roth also records aluncheon conversational the home of Reuben Sassoon 
at which the composition of a Cabinet which Edward VII would find most 
nearly ideal was discussed, and it was suggested that "Lord Esher, of course, 
the power behind the scenes, would be the obvious Prime Minister." It is 
clearly indicated that the hub of British power politics was not considered 
to be in Downing Street, but that the Prime Minister was subject to the 
orders of "the power behind the scenes." 

T. V. Soong, the present foreign minister of China, is also head of the 
Sassoon controlled Bank of China, which Mr. Elmer T. Clark describes in 
"The Chiangs of China," published in 1943, (page 71) as "ruling one of the 
world's great financial organizations." Mr. Soong is the son of a Chinese 
business man who was educated as a Methodist missionary in the United 
States, and was there babtized Charles Jones Soon. After returning to China 
in 1886, Mr. Soon changed his name to Soong. He wrote that his salary of 
$15.00 per month as a missionary was inadequate, and he therefore made a 
more profitable connection as a political agent of the Bank of China and 
Japan. His son, T. V. Soong, was educated at Harvard and was then given 
post-graduate training in an international banking house in New York. He 
was transferred to a Sassoon subsidiary in China about 1920. 

Impressive historical record and authentic documentationreveal that the 
American kings of finance of the Rockefeller-Morgan machine entered into 
a secret agreement with the British-French-Dutch-Orientalcombine in the 
early part of 1897 by which they regulated and allocated the business of the 
world among themselves much like the racketeers of recent years have split 
up the illicit liquor concessions in our big cities. 

Their agreement was particularly designed to destroy the foreign com- 
merce of Germany and of some other unfavored nations, and its operation 
necessarily demanded a concurrent secret military alliance, and this numbered 
among its ardent sponsors Theodore Roosevelt, then assistant secretary of 
the navy; Senator Henry Cabot Lodge; Senator Nelson W. Aldrich, widely 
reputed Rockefeller-Morgan associate; Chauncey M. Depew, known in some 
foreign countries as America's leading citizen; Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan, 
writer on power politics upon whom many foreign distinctions had been 
showered; and somewhat reluctantly, President William McKinley. 

Japan was a member of this secret alliance through the House of Mitsiu, 
Eothschild-Vickere ally. There, was a gradually rising dissatisfaction in 


Japan through the years with her split cf the international take, and in the 
early 1930's a rebellious military faction assassinated some of the officials 
and political associates of the House of Mitsiu, and thereby crashed a wide 
gap into the solid front of irresistable might with which the alleged justice- 
minded peace-loving powers had kept the brutal forces of aggression sup- 
pressed for over 35 years. 

By its secret alliance, the United States was committed as a British- Jap 
ally to the Boxer War of 1900 in which foreign investments had to be pro- 
tected against one of the periodical uprisings of the Chinese Nationalists; 
to the Russo-Jap War of 1904, settled by President Theodore Roosevelt for 
his ally in a master-stroke of diplomacy; to the Morocco Conflict of 1906 
at Algeciras in which Theodore Roosevelt threw the full weight of American 
might into the scale to give Africa to his allies; and to World War I, where 
the language used by Theodore Roosevelt in denouncing the vacillation and 
delay of President Wilson exceeded the limits of ordinary decency. 

Theodore Roosevelt was widely renowned in foreign lands as one of the 
foremost exponents of Machiavellian government of modern times, and few 
works on international politics through the years fail to accord considerable 
space to his many sly presumptions of power. 

The death of Dr. Sun Yat-sen on March 12, 1925, left the foreign bankers 
without a moderating influence in Nationalistic circles, and the perennial 
war of the Nationalists with the bankers was promptly resumed in 1926. 
Their new leader, General Chiang Kai-shek, accompanied by the Soviet 
Russian General Michael Borodin, moved on Shanghai to loot the vaults of 
the foreign bankers. (The Chiangs of China, page 68.) 

Then, in what was perhaps the most sensational upset in the history 
of international power politics, an incident widely condemned by inter- 
nationalist writers as the direct cause of World War II, President Calvin 
Coolidge declined to honor the secret commitments of the United States and 
refused to permit American ships and troops to engage in active hostilities 
against the Chinese Nationalists. 

In this extremity, the bankers sent Mr. T. V. Soong to negotiate with 
Chiang Kai-shek. He offered Chiang $3,000,000.00 in cash, his own pretty 
sister May-ling as a wife (Chiang already had a wife and family), and the 
presidency of China as successor to Mr. Soong's deceased brother-in-law 
Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Chiang accepted the offer and ordered his Russian allies. 
to get out of China, and the wedding took place in December, 1927. 

In 1940 Mr. T. V. Soong offered to hold off a Japanese attack on the j 
United States until this country could prepare itself to meet the attack whai ; 
it came for the sum of $100,000,000.00, which in effect was to be a flat giftj 
to China. Mr. Ernest 0. Hauser records in an article appearing in Life in j 


1941, that the President called in his financial manager, Jesse Jones, and 
that it was decided that "The merchandise was fantastically cheap at that 
price" and that this "bill of goods" was therefore "bought." It would seem 
that Mr. T. V. Soong, as head of the Bank of China, was selling a "bill of 
goods" for his principals of the House of Sassoon which has a striking re- 
semblance to the "bill of goods" sold by Mr. Winston Churchill when he 
offered: "Give us the tools and we will do the job." 

In the early 1900's, the House of Sassoon was at the peak of its power, 
and its members, who had all gradually drifted to London from the orient, 
entertained in lavish magnificence, and Dr. Roth records that King Edward 
VII was a very constant house guest and companion of its members, and that 
among other greats and future greats of these years partaking of their intimate 
hospitality were A. J. Balfour, H. G. Wells and the rising Winston Churchill. 

Mr. Hi G. Wells haa been engaged through the years in distorting and 
falsifying international history in the service of the secret empire of finance. 
His "What is Coming? A European Forecast, " published in 1916, was written 
to impel American entry into World ^War I, and its subject matter has been 
largely used to bring about American entry into World War II, with only 
minor transposition of names, as may be apparent from a few sentences, as 
follows : 

", . . The Hohenzollern Imperialism towers like the black threat of a 
new Caesarism over all the world (p. 208). F by dying I could end the Hohen- 
zollern Empire tomorrow I would gladly do it (p. 214) . . . The American 
tradition is based upon the casting off of a Germanicmonarciiy, it is its cardinal 
idea. These sturdy Republicans did not fling out the Hannoverians and their 
Hessian troops to prepare a path of glory for Potsdam (p. 222). . . For fifty 
years Germany has been unifying the minds of her people against the world. 
She has obsessed them with an evil ideal . . . (p. 223). This catastrophic war 
and its preparation have been their chief business for half a century . . . 
(p. 270). We fight dynastic ambition, national vanity, greed, and the fruits 
of fifty years of basely conceived and efficiently conducted education, (p. 272) 
. . . F Germany remains Hohenzollern after the war, to do their utmost to 
ring her in with commercial alliances, tariffs, navigation and exclusion laws 
that will keep her poor and powerless and out of mischief so long as her vice 
remains in her (p. 273)." 

Charles A and Mary R. Beard in their recent Basic History state (p. 
442): "On the basis of clear documentary evidence scholars dissected the 
myth, propagated by those Powers, that Germany was wholly responsible 
for inaugurating the war . . . The gleaming mirage that pictured the World 
War as purely or even mainly a war for democracy and civilization dissolved 
beyond recognition . . ." The Beards merely recorded history, while Mr. 
Wells was merely selling a "bill of goods." 


Over 400 years ago, the Florentine statesman Niccolo Machiavelli en- 
gaged in a profound study of methods used by various rulers to attain power. 
He lived in an age when nations were small, in some cases only walled cities, 
when events were moving fast and when many men were struggling for power. 
Due to his own confidential government position, he was able to observe 
events in other lands and in his own closely, he was able to evaluate the 
methods of those who succeeded and to observe the mistakes of those who 
failed. In "The Prince" he reduces his conclusions to definite rules or 
doctrines. His conclusions,' in general, appear to find support in the De 
Monarchia of Dante written two hundred years before "The Prince." 

The findings of Machiavelli and other students of power decree that to 
obtain power it is essential to ignore the moral laws of man and of God; 
that promises must be made only with the intention to deceive and to mislead 
others to sacrifice their own interests; that the most brutal atrocity must be 
committed as a matter of mere convenience; that friends or allies must be 
betrayed as matter of course as soon as they have served their purpose. But, 
it is also decreed that these atrocities must be kept hidden from the common 
people except only where they are of use to strike terror to the hearts of oppo- 
nents; that there must be kept up a spurious aspect of benevolence and 
benefit for the greater number of the people, and even an aspect of humility 
to gain as much help as possible. 

It is held that the vast mass of the people are oblivious and gullible, 
and therefore will believe a lie which is repeated again and again, regardless 
of how obvious may be the fundamental facts to the contrary. But, in Chapter 
VI of "The Prince" is decreed also: ". . . matters should be so ordered that 
when men no longer believe of their own accord, they may be compelled'to 
believe by force." 

Mr. Wells illustrated a practical application of the doctrines of power 
in his book of 1916, mentioned previously, in declaring that it was the re- 
solve of sensible and influential Englishmen to beat Germany thoroughly 
and finally, and, if Germany remains Hohenzollern after the war, to do their 
utmost to ring her in with commerical alliances, tariffs, navigation and ex- 
clusion laws that would keep her poor and powerless and out of mischief so 
long as her vice remained in her. 

Thus, Mr. Wells first hypocritically divulged part of the exact technique 
which had been in use for fifty years to exclude Germany and other un- 
favored nations from the colossal commercial dominions and monopolies of 
the private empires of the dynasties of finance, and then cunningly distorted 
the reality of the past and the present as a proposed future punishment. 

This is an application of the doctrine of power which holds that high- 
minded words can be used by the powerful, the demogogue and the hypocrite, 


or the merely self-deluded, to arouse passion and prejudice and sentimentality 
for the wrong reasons in favor of disguised real aims; thus to deceive the 
people and to lead them by easy stages to sacrifice their own interests in the 
service of power. 

It is obvious that in the early stages of the usurpation of power in any 
land of even partial democracy, opposition is certain to arise, and that an 
attempt to suppress this antagonism by arbitrary means would quickly in- 
flame and solidify the opponents into an overwhelming attack. Machiavelli 
considered this aspect and indicated the correct method to neutralize this 
danger in stating: "Many consider, that a wise prince, when he has the 
opportunity, ought with craft to foster some animosity against himself, so 
that, having crushed it, his renown may rise higher." 

This indicates the technique of modem Machiavellians in having their 
own stalking horses grasp the leadership of their opponents, and then as their 
own veiled and hidden action is gradually unfolded, have their Pied Pipers 
oppose them on spurious and superficial reasons in such a way as to obscure 
and conceal as far as possible the real reasons and objectives; thereby con- 
fusing and confounding the real opponents and leading them into a swamp 
of futility. 

Since the Rothschild dynasty attained control of British finance 130 
years ago, every major war has been fought to utter collapse of British oppo- 
nents and unconditional surrender, and has left international finance omnipo- 
tent and unrestrained in organizing a new power-block to enforce the peace 
and to exploit the victory. Each of these successive power-blocks has failed 
in a brief length of time due to the desertion of an ally infuriated by the 
boundless greed of the British bankers, and'has led to a new war, and these 
wars have been of progressively greater scope and fury. 

Only France has been a constant ally for over a century, and the reason 
seems quite evident as the House of Rothschild has controlled both Britain 
and France during this period. In "Inside Europe," published in 1936, John 
Gunther develops (Ch. IX) that any French prime minister, at the end of 
1935, was a creature of the financial oligarchy. That this financial oligarchy 
was dominated by twelve regents, of whom six were bankers, who were 
"hereditary regents" in the absolute sense of the term, and were headed by 
Baron Edouard de Rothschild. 

War, according to Machiavelli, must be applied at almost regular inter- 
vals to maintain power. It is held that it is not an unforeseeable accident and 
that it is not a passing madness, but that it is a normal and indispensable 
tool of power. It must be applied "promptly and ruthlessly to be effective in 
its function of maintaining and extending power. 

The infinite danger of the present position of the United States in its 


relations with the all-pervading power and presumption of the allied dynasties 
and empires of finance, appears from the dogmatic assertion of David Lloyd 
George in his "Better Times:" "The international trade of the world is ours." 
The Machiavellian methods used in acquiring this power are admitted by 
Mr. Winston Churchill in his statement that the British Empire was built 
by the sword and will be maintained by the sword. 

Machiavelli very urgently warned against any alliance with a more 
powerful friend, and counseled that in cases where this was unavoidable, 
the stronger friend must be regarded as a certain potential enemy who must 
be undermined and destroyed as soon as circumstances permit with the aid 
of the common enemy and of weaker friends. 

The Machiavellian nature of the British Government appears from a 
consideration of British policy by Rear Admiral Charles L. Hussey in "The 
United States and Great Britain," published in 1932 for The Chicago Council 
on Foreign Relations by The University of Chicago Press, as follows (p. 171): 
"The British have no written policy, nor even a written constitution. . . To 
undertake to outline British policy, an American must be both capable and 
daring. It seems the part of wisdom to turn to the British themselves for 
this. The editor of a British colonial weekly tersely stated it as follows: 
'Britain is the workshop of the world. It lives by foreign trade, therefore, to 
secure and hold markets it must invest money abroad, acquire colonies and 
control the seas . . . The world must be made safe, not for democracy — for 
that is only a word — but for trade and commerce. . . That is the national 
policy of the British people, of both Liberals and Conservatives. It forms 
the background of all British thinking. It is not openly stated, as there is a 
trace of Oriental secrecy and reticence in England. It is not considered good 
form to shout one's beliefs from the house-tops." 



The Rhodesian ideology was outlined in a letter written by Cecil Rhodes 
in the autumn of 1890 and made public by W. T. Stead in the Review of 
Reviews of May, 1902, immediately after the death of Rhodes, in part as 
follows: "What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or 
if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States 
Assembly and our House of Commons, the Peace cf the world is secure fix all 
eternity. We could well hold your federal parliament five years at Washington 
and five years at London. The only thing possible to carry this idea out is 
a secret one (society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be de- 
voted to such an object ... I note with satisfaction that the committee a p 
pointed to inquire into the McKinley Tariff report that in certain articles 
our trade has fallen off 50 per cent, and yet the fools do not see that if they 
do not look out they will have England shut out and isolated with ninety 
millions to feed and capable internally of supporting about six millions, ff 
they had statesmen they would at the present moment be commercially at 
war with the United States, and they would have boycotted the raw products 
of the United States until she came to her senses . . ." Mr. Stead further 
records in this same article that Mr. Rhodes worked with the support and 
backing of the Rothschild's in his mammoth undertakings' and speculations 
in Africa. 

When Mr. Rhodes considered the problem of "ninety millions to feed" 
he waa looking a long way into the future, for the Great Britain of 1890 had 
a population of only 37,000,000 including Ireland. Like Mr. Depew, he felt 
the need of doing something very drastic about foreign markets and demand- 
ed an immediate boycott of the very nation with which he also wanted union 
in order to force down its tariffs, so British goods could undersell American 
goods in the American market. The vicious circle started by this foreign 
interference would as its next step have forced the reduction of American 
wages to the much lower British level to regain the market, and so on ad 

When we entered the alliance of 1897 with the British Empire in order 
to create an overwhelming British control of the Balance of Power, and agreed 
to assist the British Empire in the permanent encirclement and repression 


of Germany, Russia and China (with the latter requiring immediate, urgent 
and active attention), we adopted one of the two opposing theories of geo- 
political thought referred to by Prof. Spykman in "America's Strategy in 
World Politics." The controlling factor towards this alliance was a wide 
acceptance of the Rhodesian ideology that with such an alliance, "the peace 
of the world is secure for all eternity." This fallacy has persisted practically 
up to the present in an utterly fatuous belief in the eternal omnipotence of 
British "sea-power." 

The foreign trade statistics of the United States in the years since 1897 
demonstrate very conclusively that the statement of Lord Salisbury in 1898: 
"The appearance of the American Republic among the factors, at all events, 
of Asiatic, and possibly of European diplomacy, is a grave and serious event, 
which may not conduce to the interests of peace, though I think, in any event, 
it is likely to conduce to the interests of Great Britain;" was far more to the 
point than was the fatuous eloquence of Chauncey M. Depew proclaiming 
in 1900 that "by the statesmanship of William McKinley ... we have our 
market in the Philippines, and we stand in the presence of eight hundred 
millions of people, with the Pacific as an American lake ..." 

That the Pacific simply became much more of a British lake than it 
had been is very apparent by combining the totals of the foreign trade of the 
United States with those lands in the British colonial orbit whose exchange 
largely balances United Kingdom purchases, with the figures of the United 
Kingdom; in other words, adding together the foreign trade of China, India, 
Malaya, the Philippine Islands, and the United Kingdom. We then compare 
the years 1897 when we joined the "policy of encirclement" and the year 
1927 when Mr. Coolidge definitely withdrew our support of the British 
alliance, at the time when it had become involved in the war with the National- 
ists under Chiang Kai-shek. 

Foreign Trade of the United States in Millions of Dollars (World Almanac): 

Area or Country 




The Orbit of British Finance 

Sales to 

$ 556 



(United Kingdom, China, India, 
Malaya, PhiEppine Islands) 





Germany (relatively smaller 
and poorer in 1927) 

Sales to 







Grand Total of U. S. Foreign 

Sales to 




Trade with All Nations 





In 1927 a weak and improverished Germany still accounted for 41% of 
the narrowing favorable margin still remaining to the United States in its 
sales to all the nations of the world over its purchases. On the other hand 
the highly favorable margin of sales over purchases in our trade with the 
British orbit which existed in 1897 had almost disappeared in 1927. The 
year 1927 was in most respects the best year of the post-war era of prosperity 
preceding the great depression. Our sales to a defeated and smaller Germany 


in 1927 were over three times greater than they had been in 1897, while our 
sales to the British orbit, which had profited immensely from the imperialistic 
expansion of 1897-1920 and from further war and post-war expansion, did 
not even double; and actually contracted due to the much greater volume of 
post-war business activity and lesser purchasing power of money. However, 
we did very well by our British ally, for we bought six times more goods 
from the British orbit in 1927 than we did in 1897. 

Our trade with Germany, was about as important as our trade with all 
of Latin America. Germany was a heavy buyer of American raw materials 
and an American competitor in selling manufactured goods in Latin America. 
The Latin American countries, particularly those of South America, were 
competitors of the United States in selling raw materials to Germany, and 
were buyers of American manufactured goods. We competed with Germany 
in the Latin American market throughout modem times, and held our own 
very well, and the deadly menace of this competition to our continued national 
existence was not evident until it was given a promotional build-up for the 
world-wide boycott of German made goods inaugurated by the International 
Conference called at Amsterdam in the early part of 1933 in retribution for 
German misdeeds. 

The United States promptly joined in tb ; s boycott with its "Most 
Favored Nations" treaties to which every country in the world, except only 
Germany, was eligible. This was not a step short of war; it was war, and 
it was sure to lead to eventual bloodshed. Had a boycott of this type been 
enforced against a relatively small and weak country like Cr bi* or Venezuela, 
it would have ended in open fighting. When German toys, dolls, cutlery, 
wines and other goods disappeared from the counters of American merchants 
(to be replaced by goods marked "Made in Japan"), the German market for 
American wheat, meat and cotton disappeared also; and there was invented 
the remedy of plowing under surplus crops and of killing off surplus little pigs. 

When the American financial-political machine of 1897 decided that a 
very drastic expedient was necessary to forcibly acquire foreign markets to 
absorb the two thousand millions excess production over what we could 
consume, the population of the United States was about 76,000,000, and aver- 
aged about 25 per square mile of what is nearly the finest and most pro- 
ductive land on earth. When the American machine of 1933 decided upon a 
similar expedient for similar reasons, their principal opponent was a nation 
which according to late statistics has a population which averages 352 per 
square mile of a country containing almost as much mountainous and other 
unproductive area in proportion as the United States. 

In attempting to evaluate the explosive and dynamic opposing forces in 
this situation, forces that threaten to destroy this civilization, Prof. Usher in 
his "Pan-Germanism" of 1913 states (page 247): "England, France, Russia, 


and the United States already possess the choice places in the world; their 
position is already everything they could reasonably hope to have it; and 
they scarcely deserve to be praised for unselfishness when they insist upon 
preserving a situation which is so very much to their advantage . . . Nor is it 
proved that they have obtained it by the observance of the ethical precepts 
which they would now be glad to apply to Germany ..." As to Germany's 
position he states (page 233): "If Germany is wrong, others too have been 
wrong; indeed, if her conduct is unjustifiable, no country in the world can 
establish its moral and ethical right to existence." It is noteworthy that since 
this was written in 1913, England and France improved their already domi- 
nant position immensely, largely at the expense of Germany; thus to aggra- 
vate the problem. 

If an America with only 25 people per square mile and almost unlimited 
access to the good things of this earth was headed back into stagnation and 
poverty unless it could sell two thousand millions more than it could con- 
sume, and a Britain in control of one-third of the markets and the raw ma- 
terials of all the earth was in such need of the markets of the American 
workman in America that the great high priest of "Union Now" would 
advocate commercial warfare against the United States in 1890 in order to 
force their surrender to Britain, where will all this end? The British scramble 
to forestall us in the markets of the world right now should be a fair indication 
of trouble ahead, not only in our foreign affairs but also at home when the 
American workman can no longer be kept employed by giving our surplus 
production away and charging it to the American taxpayer. 

In following one of the two opposing theories of geopolitical thought 
and in the alleged purpose of retaining for the United States its foreign 
markets, more money has already been spent than the gross total of our sales 
to all the world in all the years of our existence; an expenditure that makes 
a mockery of what profit or capital may have been derived from this source, 
and makes a mockery of all proved economic thought. The fundamental 
facts are that nations do not trade with one another because they are political 
allies or political opponents. Foreign nations buy from the United States 
because they need what she has to sell and because they want to sell their 
own products in return. 

The actual position of the United States in the power politics of the 
world was well outlined by Prof. Usher in "Pan-Germanism," Chapter X, 
pages 141 to 143: "The possibility of invasion (of the Gnited States) is made 
of no consequence by the simple fact that no foreign nation possesses any 
inducement for attempting so eminently hazardous an enterprise. The 
United States possesses literally nothing which any foreign nation wants 
that force would be necessary to obtain, while, by making war upon the 
United States, she would certainly expose herself to annihilation at the hands 


of her enemies in Europe, who have patiently waited for decades in the hope 
that some one of them would commit so capital a blunder . . ." ". . . the 
complexity of the problems of no one group of states, whether in Europe, in 
the Middle East, or in the Far East, could possibly allow the United States 
to play a prominent part. In each, the natural antipathies counteract each 
other. Only the fact that every nation is anxious to maintain or win power or 
wealth in Europe and Africa and Asia makes the United States d value to any 
cf Ihem Indeed, it is only as European questions become themselves factors 
in the larger problem of India, Morocco, and the Mediterranean that they 
concern the United States at all. As soon as European politics became world 
politics and Asiatic and African problems became European, the United 
States began to be a factor in their solution. She has, to be sure, no vital stake 
in any one cf these fields . . ." 

There have probably been over 100,000,000 casualties and over 25,000,000 
dead in the wars of the European Balance of Power in the modem era, and 
as the greatest interval between major wars in this 130 year period has 
never been over 24 years and the minimum interval has only been 12 years, 
every generation — usually assumed to be about 33 yeare — has had one or 
two major wars, and this recurring slaughter has been the subject of much 
inconclusive and perplexed discussion. (See footnote.) 

A monstrous structure of bigotry and intolerance has been artifically 
devised throughout the Christian world which dogmatically rejects any 
recognition of the fundamental disease underlying the recurring symptoms of 
war. Most of the political leaders of the United States have not been ac- 
quainted with the most elementary fundamentals of the two opposing theories 
of geopolitical thought, and in making these two opposing theories merely 
two sides of a debate have given vent to surprisingly simple-minded 

That many of the problems of the peace being discussed now still bear 
a striking resemblance to those confronting the world following the gigantic 
slaughter of the Napoleonic War, when the end of the war found the people 
of Europe stunned with horror, imploring their statesmen and rulers to find 
some solution of this recurring slaughter of innocent human beings, may be 
apparent from the following from "The War and Democracy" by J. Dover 
Wilson, published in London in 1918: "The Congress of the Powers which 
met at Vienna in 1814 to resettle the map of Europe, after the upheavals and 
wan of the previous twenty-five years, was a terrible disappointment; and 
we, who are now (in 1918) hopefully looking forward to a similar Congress 

In "England's World Empire" by A. H. Granger, published in 1916, is given this 
statement by C. H. Norman: ". . . Nor is British Navalism innocuous in its spirit! Through 
that navalism, Britain has assailed nation after nation in Europe that has threatened her 
trade supremacy; and Germany, the latest comer, is being similarly handled. 'On the knee, 
you dog:' was a phrase that rang unpleasantly through England not long ago . . ." 

at the end cf the present war, cannot do better than to study the great failure 
of 1814, and take warning from it. The phrases which heralded the approach- 
ing Congress were curiously and disquietingly similar to those on the lips cf 
our public men and journalists today (1918) when they speak of the "settle- 
ment" before us. "The Parliament of Man, the Federation cf the World" 
. . . seemed in 1814 on the eve of accomplishment. The work of the Congress 
waa to be no less than "the reconstruction cf the moral order," "the regener- 
ation of the political system cf Europe," the establishment cf "an enduring 
peace founded on a just redistribution of political forces," the institution cf 
an effective and a permanent international tribuanal, the encouragement cf 
the growth cf representative institutions, and, last but not least, an arrange- 
ment between the Powers for a gradual and systematic disarmament . . . The 
Congress of Vienna was to inaugurate a New Era. (Pages 31-32.) 

". . . the only man who at first voiced these aspirations of the world at 
large waa the Russian Tsar, Alexander L, and such concessions to popular 
opinion as were made were due to what the English plenipotentiary, Lord 
Caatlereagh, described as the 'sublime mysticism and nonsense' of the Em- 

That history repeats itself, again and again, and again; may become 
apparent from the fact, that one hundred years later that eminent servant 
of International Finance, Georges Clemenceau, termed Woodrow Wilson's 
Fourteen Points and "the subsequent addresses" as a joke on history; and 
these Fourteen Points were completely waahed out and eliminated before 
the end cf the Peace Conference of 1919. 

The British objectives in the Napoleonic War were stated in a few 
simple and forthright words in which the British Government declared that 
it was not its intent to fight the French people — only to rid Europe cf the 
Scourge of Napoleon, bring peace to Europe and preserve the rights of small 
nations; and these same words, with a mere change of names, have served to 
explaii the British position in all the succeeding wars of the Balance cf 
Power, including World War I and World War II. 

Unfortunately, the exigencies of power politics after every cyclical war 
have been such that it was invariably deemed expedient to sacrifice some small 
nations for the general good, and a typical example is cited by Ford Madox 
Hueffer in "When Blood is Their Argument," published in London in 1915: 
"I think the time has come when we may say that the one crime that this 
country (Britain) has committed against civilization was its senseless oppo- 
sition to Napoleon. It was, to me, extraordinarily odd to hear the British 
Prime Minister the other day talk of the Campaign of 1815 as a war of Free- 
dom. For, if you come to think of it, by the treaty after that war, Great 
Britain, the Holy Alliance and Metternich . . . affirmed upon Poland the 
triple yoke cf Austria, Russia and Prussia . . ." There is a similar indictment 


by some British author of note on practically every war of the Balance of 
Power fought by Britain. 

As to the fate of the working classes who fought the war with their blood 
and their life's savings in the case of a country which had achieved total 
victory after a long costly war, the Illustrated Universal History of 1878 
records: "Great Britain emerged from the long contest with France with 
increased power and national glory. Her Empire was greatly extended in all 
parts of the world; her supremacy on the sea was undisputed; her wealth and 
commerce were increased . . . But with all this national prosperity, the lower 
classes of the English people were sunk in extreme wretchedness and poverty. " 

In "Old Diplomacy and New," 1923, the British writer A. L. Kennedy 
states: "There is more than a grain of truth in the witticism that "Con- 
ferences only succeed when their results are arranged beforehand." When 
the Financial Commission at Genoa met to discuss the stabilization of cur- 
rencies, 250 delegates forced their way into the room. A sub-Commission 
"No. 1" was formed for the transaction of the most important political 
business on which Germany was represented. But for ten days it was given 
no business to perform. The work was done in conversations between the 
principal Allied representatives meeting at Lloyd George's villa. 

I n his "Memoirs of the Peace Conference" Lloyd George records a memo- 
randum which had been presented by him March 25, 1919, for the considera- 
tion of the Peace Conference: "You may strip Germany of her colonies, 
reduce her armaments to a mere police force and her navy to that of a fifty- 
rate power; all the same in the end if she feels that she has been unjustly 
treated in the peace of 1919 she va]l find means of exacting retribution from 
her conquerors." There is every indication that Lloyd-George considered 
the Peace Treaty as merely a temporary stop-gap to be renegotiated after 
ten or fifteen years because he made some contingent agreements of that 



By the tested and effective device of constant repetition the international 
claque haa manufactured into apparently accepted fact the falsehood that 
the United States has heretofore had no established foreign policy. That this 
is not true may be apparent from a consideration of the five great ideologies 
involved in the modern struggle for space and power, listed in the order of 
their presumed geographical scope. They are as follows: 

1. The secret ideology of international finance, which has been described in 
comprehensive and precise detail hereinbefore, and which is aimed at 
eventual rule over all the world by the British Government. World rule 
by a closely knit and welldisciplined group of special privilege, secret 
mostly only in the United States as most European people have a fair con- 
ception of its existence and workings. 

2. The ideology of Russia which was originally conceived in the Will of 
Peter the Great. A. H. Granger in "England's World Empire," published 
1916 (page 173) dwells on the fear of the Russian Pan-Slavic ideology 
which has overshadowed Europe for over a century, and he quotes the 
whole of this document which is directed at first eliminating the obstacle 
of Austria and Germany, then proposes the conquest of India and Persia, 
and ends with the words: ". . . which will ensure the subjugation of 
Europe." This fundamental scope has been broadened to encompass the 
entire world by the Bolshevist doctrine of world rule by the proletariat, 
with death to Capitalism and the International Capitalist." 

3. The ideology of Japan "Asia for the Asiatics," with its pretentions to 
almost half of the people of the world in a confederation dominated by 

4. Pan-Germanism, German political control over the European continent, 
freedom from British restriction of the seas, and "the open door" in the 
trade and commerce of all the world. 

5. Pan- Americanism, prerogative of the United States of political control of 
the Americas; the ideology of "America for the Americans," given early 
expression by the Monroe Doctrine. 

Not only was Ideology No. 5 the expression of the established foreign 
policy of the United States from 1823 to its abandonment 75 years later by 
the adherents of the ideology of world rule by international finance, in order 
to ally the United States with the wider scope of Ideology No. 1; but it is 

still the fundamental ideology of those in favor of that theory of geopolitical 
thought which proposes isolation from the entanglements of Europe and 
Asia. (See footnote.) 

The first four of these ideologies all overlap and clash in their scope; 
and even the total destruction of any one would still leave a fair balance among 
the other three; which would restrain any one of them from exposing itself 
in an attack upon the Americas and the United States; particularly, if the 
United States could achieve real unity in the Americas. But the abandon- 
ment by the United States of its own ideology No. 5 to align itself with 
Ideology No. 1 with the avowed purpose of totally destroying Ideologies 
No. 3 and No. 4, will leave only the world embracing and absolutely opposed 
Ideologies No. 1 and No. 2 to possibly engage in a duel to the death with the 
aid of such subjugated peoples as each can wheedle or compel to join its 
forces. Such a duel seems inevitable in view of the deep animosities and the 
explosive economic pressures already existing. 

That those in control of American foreign affaire do not propose to re- 
tain any allegiance to Ideology No. 5, or of making it an ideology within an 
ideology, and to evidently give the British Government assurance of this 
fact, seems indicated by the delegation of American purchases and of Ameri- 
can finances in South America to British deputations and commissions. It 
would seem impossible as participants of Ideology No. 1 to maintain the iron 
tariff wall permitted us under the policy of isolation, which has been the 
principal bulwark of a scale of wages and a scale of life far above those of 
other countries; regardless of its condemnation at times due to misuse by 
selfish interests. 

Of the five great ideologies of the world only the Pan-American ideology 
ever substantially attained its objectives. It is the oldest of these modern 
ideologies except for that part of the Russian ideology expressed in the Will 
of Peter the Great, and that part of Ideology No. 1 laid down early in the 
history of the British oligarchy in the following rules of empire: 

1. Gain and hold territories that possess the largest supplies of the basic 
raw materials. 

2. Establish naval bases around the world to control the sea and commerce 

The expression of isolation by the Monroe Doctrine was reiterated by Secretary of 
State Root in 1906, in replying to a petition requesting the United States to take action 
to prevent the persecution of the Armenians by the Turkish Government: "By the jn- 
written law of more than a century, we are," he said, "debarred from sharing in the political 
aims, interests, or responsibilities of Europe, just as by the equally potential doctrine, now 
nearly a century old, the European powers are excluded from sharing or interfering in the 
political concerns of the sovereign states of the Western Hemisphere." Secretary: Olney 
nad previously held in his note to Lord Salesbury during the Venezuela boundary dispute 
in 1896-6, that: "American non-intervention in Europe implied European non-interven- 
tion in America." 


3. Blockade and starve into submission any nation or group of nations that 
opposes this empire control program. 

Ideology No. 1 did not arise until the 1890's and was the expression of 
the vision of Cecil Rhodes of a one -government warless world. It caught 
the fancy of many other dreamers and idealists who saw in it a solution of 
the periodical wars of the world, and failed to see in it the seed of gigantic 
wars of the future in the opposition of powerful races who would decline to 
recognize the fantastic doctrine of the racial superiority of the Anglo-Saxon 
and of his pre-ordained destiny to rule all the races of the earth. This doctrine 
was an integral part of Ideology No. 1 and was definitely expressed by one 
of its leading American proponents, the late William Allen White, newspaper 
publisher, in these words: "It is the destiny of the pure Aryan Anglo-Saxon 
race to dominate the world and kill off or else reduce to a servile status all 
other inferior races." 

Only a very limited number of the British ruling class can make any 
pretentions of being "pure Aryan Anglo-Saxons," as the average Englishman 
is a mixture of all the races on earth, of all the oppressed peoples and fugitives 
who crossed the waters of the British Channel to the new free land beyond 
over a period of a thousand years; and of the British nobility itself a large 
proportion is Jewish. The Angles and the Saxons were Germans, and more 
of their descendants and relatives remained in Germany than migrated to 
England. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an Anglo-Saxon as a 
member of the mixed race which forms the English nation. Few people can 
trace all branches of their ancestry very far, and those that can trace it back 
to some worthy individual in any branch, are content to stop there and to 
accept that as the answer to their own pretentions; and when we note that 
Adolf Hitler was still a 23 year old common laborer on building construction 
at a time when the words of Mr. White received wide acclaim in Britain and 
America, we can reasonably ask who started all this hokum of the master race. 

The American pilgrims and partners who entered the new secret ideology 
in 1897 knew that they were renouncing and abandoning the established 
isolationism of "America for the Americans" for a presumably bigger and 
better ideology, despite the fact that for another 45 years the pretension of 
Pan- Americanism was kept up, until the recent acquisition of absolute con- 
trol over American foreign affairs made possible the deft substitution of 
global Ideology No. 1. 

The Monroe Doctrine was promulgated in 1823 at a time when the 
newly formed British-French alliance of the international bankers was faced 
with a rising discontent in the vast Mohammedan world and when their 
fleets were needed to protect their holdings in the Near-east, the Middle-east 
and the Far-east. Its inception was greeted with derision by the British 
press, but no immediate overt move resulted, because an uprising in the 


Greek Christian provinces of Turkey, nominal protector of Mohammedanism, 
had provided a suitable cause for intervention, and it was urgent to over- 
come the menace of the Mussulman first. 

Due to her sympathy with the suppressed Greek Christians, Russia 
entered the war against Mohammedanism and on October 20,1827, the allied 
British-French-Russian fleet destroyed the allied Mohammedan fleet at the 
Battle of Navarino. Having initiated Russia into the war with Turkey and 
Egypt, Britain and France withdrew from the conflict, and after Russia had 
defeated Turkey two years later, curtailed her victory to such an extent that 
Turkey emerged out of the conflict as a British ally. 

This initiated the long-drawn friction with Russia which ended in the 
great Crimean War, in which Russia was totally defeated and disarmed in 
the Black Sea area in 1856, and the Russian influence in the power politics 
of Europe removed for one hundred years in the opinion of many prominent 
British statesmen and writers. 

Thus the British interest had been actively engaged in other parts of the 
world for 33 years after the Monroe Doctrine had been initiated, but now 
they were able to turn their attention at last to America. A close business 
relationship had grown up between the cotton-growing aristocracy of the 
southern states and cotton manufacturing England, and the southern states 
were swarming with British agents. Soon a great conspiracy arose among 
southern politicians, which erupted with the secession of South Carolina from 
the Union on December 20, 1860, followed by six more states in about one 
month. The conspirators raised armies and seized forts, arsenals, mints, 
ships and other National property. Members of the Cabinet actively engaged 
in crippling the Union, injuring the public credit and working to bankrupt 
the nation, with the apparently passive assent of President Buchanan. (*) 

It was in this situation that the Republican dark-horse candidate Abra- 
ham Lincoln, victor in a four-cornered slave and anti-slave race for the 
Presidency, came into office on March 4,1861. There had been a lot of blood- 
shed before Lincoln was inaugurated, but it is part of the American Fable 
that the first shot of the Civil War was fired at Fort Sumter on April 1 2, 1 86 1 . 

In December, 1861, a large British, French and Spanish expeditionary 
force was landed at Vera Cruz in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine. This, 
together with direct British aid to the Confederacy, and the fact that the Con- 
federate army was far better trained and armed than the Federal forces at 
the outset of the war, brought the fortunes of the North to a very low ebb; 
and every indication at this stage was that Britain was preparing to enter 
the war. 

(*) Illustrated Univ. History, 1878— page 504. 

In this extremity, President Lincoln appealed to Britain's perennial 
enemy Russia for aid. When the document with this urgent appeal was 
given to Alexander II, he weighed it unopened in his hand and stated: "Be- 
fore we open this paper or know its contents, we grant any request it may 
contain. On the day on which your President was inaugurated, we, Alexander 
II of Russia, signed the protocol which liberated twenty-three million serfs. 
Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, has freed four million 
slaves. Therefore, whatever he asks of Russia, Russia will grant, for Alexander 
II will not be a factor in the enslavement of any man." Unannounced, a 
Russian fleet under Admiral Lisiviski steamed into New York harbor on 
September 24, 1863, and anchored there; while the Russian Pacific fleet 
under Admiral Popov arrived at San Francisco on Oct. 12th. Of this Russian 
action, Gideon Wells said: "They arrived at the high tide of the Confederacy 
and the low tide of the North, causing England and France to hesitate long 
enough to turn the tide for the North." 

As a matter of fact, Russian interest had made the entire matter a 
subject of the Concert of Europe, and Britain had already been obliged to 
withdraw from the Mexican venture and leave the same to Napoleon III by 
the dangerous reaction in Europe, and the rising tide of Liberalism and anti- 
Imperialism at home; while the imperialistic aspirations of Napoleon III 
were shortly after drastically snuffed out by Bismarck, to be followed by 
43 years of relative peace in Europe. 

The British interference had caused a furious resentment in the United 
States, immortalized by the words of the song: "In every battle kill our 
soldiers by the help they give the foe;" and when a demand for payment cf 
direct and contingent damages due to this interference waa rejected by 
Britain in 1869, war again waa close. The controversy dragged out, however, 
and did not again break out until February 1872, when a Court of Arbitra- 
tions met and the British Arbitrator, Sir Alexander Cockburn, violently 
objected to the consideration of claims for indirect or contingent damages. 
After several months of futile argument, the United States gave up this part 
of its claims, and on September 6, 1872, was awarded very nominal damages 
of fifteen and one-half million dollars. 

Napoleon III withdrew his troops from Mexico shortly after the end cf 
the Civil War upon demand of the United States; and the Mexican Emperor 
placed on the throne created by him, Archduke Maximilian of Austria, waa 
executed June 19, 1867. 

An interesting sidelight on the relationship between certain members <f 
the British and Southern aristocracies and elite of Civil War days, appears 
from the large part played by Joseph E. Wheeler, renowned Confederate ; 
and Spanish-American War cavalry general, in his activities in the sub 
sequent subversion of the now firmly established and invincible ideology of 


the Monroe Doctrine and Pan-Americanism to Ideology No. 1 ; for Joe 
Wheeler was a principal organizer of the Pilgrim secret society of International 
Finance, as related by Sir Harry Brittain in his "Pilgrim Partners." 

The argument was expressed by Chauncey M. Depew, founder vice- 
president of the Pilgrims, that incontrollable overproduction would inevitably 
lead America back to stagnation and poverty, a very potent and fearful pros- 
pect at a time when it was just barely creeping out of the horror of the giant 
depression of .the 1890's, but for its entry in what is herein indicated for 
purpose of brevity as Ideology No. 1. 

In denial, former Congressman Towne in his speech "Lest We Forget," 
condemning American participation in the grand plan of International 
Finance to immediately eliminate Germany and Russia from the markets of 
the Far East with the aid of Japan, said of the theory af remediless over- 
production which supplied the justification of this intrigue: "When men 
freeze at the mouth of a coal mine and starve in front of a bake shop, when 
the per capita consumption of wheat decreases as population multiplies, 
when millions of our citizens lack roof and raiment, to say that there is an 
overproduction of the necessaries of life is both an economic absurdity and 
an arraignment of our American civilization at the bar of humanity and 
justice . . ." 

At about the same time the Rev. Henry Van Dyke stated in a sermon: 
"... if Americans do not thirst for garrison duty in the tropics they must be 
bought or compelled to serve ... to wilfully increase our Died of military 
force by an immense and unnecessary extension of our frontier of danger is 
to bind a heavy burden and lay it upon the unconscious backs of future 
generations of toiling men ... ff we go in among them we must fight when 
they blow the trumpet." 

Further comment on the desperate expedient adopted by the exponents 
of the "Full Dinner Pail" to fulfill their campaign promise and to overcome 
the terrible depression of the 90's appears in an article written by the late 
Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, in which 
he stated:- "A 'foreign war as a cure for domestic discontent 1 has been, the 
device of tyrants ^and false counselors from time immemorial, but it has al- 
ways lead to a Waterloo, a Sedan, to certain decadenceand often utter ruin." 

The above statements are to be found among over thirty great speeches 
and articles against the great intrigue of 1 897 in William J. Bryan's "Republic 
or Empire?" published in 1899; and the American statesmen and educators 
whose they are, proved to have been great and true prophets in the crucible 
cf 45 years; but they are prophets without honor in their own country, for to 
revive their words is to expose facts that those in interest want forgotten. 

There is no interval in American history so obscure as that between the 


secret agreement of 1 897 and the tipping of the scales in favor of the British- 
French division of Africa by Theodore Roosevelt at the Conference of Alge- 
cirasin 1906. The second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, one of the greatest political 
horse-trades of history, was concluded November 18,1901, in order to obtain 
the British-French "permission" to build the Panama Canal; but writers and 
historians of this era are, in general, very vague as to the nature of the deal 
by which the noxious British restrictions, among other prohibiting the forti- 
fication and defense of the Canal Zone, were eliminated from the first treaty 
of Feb. 5, 1900; which the U. S. Senate had rejected. 

John K. Turner in "Shall It Be Again?" published 1922, covers the fact 
that secret diplomacy was employed by our presidents in precisely the same 
manner as our allies and enemies employed it; and there is little question 
that the two presidents who have deplored secrecy and hypocrisy the loudest, 
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were among the most prolific 
users of secret diplomacy. (See footnote.) 

In accordance with the British rule of Empire: "Establish naval bases 
around the world to control the sea and commerce lanes;" Britain maintains 
a mighty array of island approaches to the Americas, and while the United 
States is now permitted air bases on some of these islands; these air bases, 
constructed at immense cost, must all be returned to become the property 
of the "Crown" or "City" after the war is over. Despite her rebuff in America 
after the Civil War, Britain has tolerated, but never accepted, the ideology 
of Pan-Americanism and the Monroe Doctrine. She has insisted on her full 
rights as the dispenser of the "Freedom of the Seas," and therefore building 
of the Panama Canal required a "material quid pro quo" for the interests 
of the British-French Financial oligarchy, which in all probability involved 
our entry into Ideology No. 1, support of their contentions at Algeciras, 
participation in World War I, and many more things. 

There has been fostered an illusion that some nations have certain 

In "From Isolation to Leadership," published 1918, John Hoiiaday Latane, Professor 
of American History in the Johns Hopkins University, states in regard to the Conference 
at Algeciras in 190a (page 76) : "The facts in regard to America's part in this conference 
have never been fully revealed. There is nothing in any published American document to 
indicate that the partici ation of our representatives waB anything more than casual. 
Andre Tardieu, the well-inown French publicist, who reported the conference and later 
published his impressions in book form, makes it evident that President Roosevelt was a 
positive factor in the proceedings. He states that at a critical stage of the conference the 
German Kaiser sent several cablegrams to President Roosevelt urging him to modify his 
instructions to Mr. White. 

"There can be no doubt that our participation in the Moroccan conference was the 
most radical departure ever made fmm our traditional policy of isolation. Roosevelt's 
influence was exerted for preserving the balance of poww in Europe. As we look back upon 
the events of that year we feel, in view of what has happened that he was fully justified 
in the course he pursued. Had his motives for participating in the conference been known <U 
the time, they would not have been upheld etifur by the Senate or by public opinion. There ore 
many serious objections to secret diplomacy, but it cannot be done away with even under 
a republican form of government until the people are educated to a fuller understanding of 
international polities. 


established rights in their ideologal aims and position, while others are law 
breakers. To give body to this allusion, there is usually added positive 
reference to International Law. Prof. Edwin J. Clapp developed in his 
"Economic Aspects cf The War," mentioned hereinbefore, that there is no 
such thing as International Law. International Law had consisted of the 
interpretation of the successive interlocking international agreements made 
by the nations of the world in meetings assembled under the provisions cf 
the Concert of Europe. The Concert of Europe operated from about 1813 
until it was laid to its final rest in the waters of Manila Bay on the morning 
of May 1, 1898, by International Finance, after it already had been reduced 
previously to a rather feeble shadow by the same forces. International 
Finance thereafter salvaged as many cf the interpretations of the Concert 
cf Europe as were useful, and added other desirable interpretations by 
"Order-in-Council," as needed, as largely developed by Prof. Clapp. 

The eminent British engineer, scientist and inventor, Arthur Kitson, 
Chairman of the Committee of Science and Arts of Franklin Institute of 
Philadelphia for ten years, and author since 1894 cf a number of profound 
works attacking the fallacy of the "Money Power" and of "Economic De- 
pressions" and of that menacing over-production cf food and merchandise 
side by side with the most dire want condemned by former Congressman 
Charles A Towne forty-five years ago as an "economic absurdity," in an 
article in the New Britain Magazine of London, of June 20, 1934; cited a 
devastating assertion by David Lloyd George that "Britain is the slave of 
an international financial bloc;" quoted words written by Lord Bryce that: 
"Democracy has no more persistent or insidious foe than the money power 
. . .', pointed out Mr. Winston Churchill as one of the supporters of Inter- 
national Finance; and stated: "Questions regarding the Bank of England, 
its conduct and its objects, are not allowed by the Speaker." (of the Houee 
of Commons). 

Mr. Kitson stated further: "Democracy in this country has become a 
faroel The real governing power is not at Westminster nor at Downing 
Street, but rests partly in Threadneedle Street and partly in Wall Street, 
New York! There sits every day in the Bank of England premises, during 
banking hours, a representative of the Federal Reserve Board of New York 
for the purpose of advising and even instructing the Governor of the Bank 
regarding his policies. When the Governor and Deputy-Governor were in- 
vited to testify before the recent MacMiUan Committee, the Governor intro- 
duced Mr. Sprague — his American adviser!" 

This American ascendancy in the affairs of the British Empire has so 
far cost the American people a vast sum of money, but this money seems to 
be in the nature of a purchase of an interest in that Empire, for exuberant 
American post-war planners are openly making plans which seem to proclaim 


them the successors of those controlling the British Empire; themselves the 
jugglers of world power which would make certain that the American people 
would not only be the principal participants in the major wars of the tfbrld, 
but would also take a part in all the minor wars of the British Empire and 
the world; that borrowing the words of the English Professor Cramb: "Scarce- 
ly a sun will set in the years to come, which will not look upon some American's 
face dead in battle — dead not for America — dead to satisfy the ambitions of 
power-crazed men." 

Mr. Haxey in his "England's Money Lords M.P." covers at some length 
the Anglo-German Fellowship and its high Tory members, among whom is 
listed Sir Harry Brittain of the Pilgrims. Lord Mount Temple, son-in-law 
of the great Jewish financier Sir Ernest Cassel, was at one time a Chairman 
of this organization. Another member, Lord Redesdale, father-in-law of Sir 
Oswald Mosley, stated in 1936 that he was one of those who considered it 
high time that some arrangement should be made whereby Germany should 
have some of her Colonial territory restored to her. Many highly placed 
Germans were close to these high members of International Finance and 
Conservatism and this secret organization may well be prepared to function 
in any situation where the upstart amateur American planners in their de- 
lusions of grandeur forget their junior status in the organization of the master 
planners cf an, eventual British dominated wcrid; for, as developed by Prof. 
Spykman on page 103 of "America's Strategy in World Politics," the game 
of the balance of power permits no enduring friendships. He concludes that 
British tactics have invariably made the friend of today the opponent of 
tomorrow. The possibility of the Anglo-German Fellowship taking over from 
the Pilgrims may not be too remote with only a slight shift in British home 

The post-war plans of other countries with large natural resources, par- 
ticularly those of China and Russia as now indicated, are being shaped to 
follow the American plan of prosperity by keeping out the goods of other 
countries in order to encourage their own industry and wealth by the aid of 
a high tariff wall or some equivalent measure; then to use every possible 
means of outselling other lands in foreign markets. China, free after 100 
years of British overlordship and encirclement, will be a mighty competitor 
with her intelligent and industrious population. Her bankers and business- 
men rank among the most able in the world. Her tariff wall has always been 
among the highest, but heretofore a large part of the customs has been in 
British hands, and British agents have disbursed the funds collected by them 
under the provisions of that part of the "Laws of England" (Vol. 23, p. 307, 
par 641) quoted in the footnotes of Chapter V. 

According to an article "How Fast Can Russia Rebuild?" by Edgar 
Snow in the Saturday Evening Post of Feb. 12, 1943, Russia has made some 


far-reaching post-war plans which apparently do not include any markets in 
Russia for American made goods; which do definitely propose to equal and 
surpass the United States in every line of production before 1960. They plan 
to sell these goods in the same markets for which the United States is fighting, 
andit would seem that the Commissar of the Russian Foreign Trade Monopoly 
may have a considerable edge over American private enterprise. 

In attempting to meet this foreign competition the United States would 
be unable to take independent action as a member of Ideology No. 1. It 
would have to consult and await the views of its British and other associates, 
and abide by the decision of other peoples. So handicapped, the crash of the 
American standard of living to the common level, conjectured as a possibility 
by Professor Usher in "The Challenge of the Future," published in 1916, is 
moving into the range of nearby probability; and many of the startling 
postulates advanced by Professor Usher in his works of 1913, 1915 and 1916, 
have already moved into the realm of fact. 

The American standard of living was well illustrated in a discourse 
entitled "What the Machine Has Done to Mankind" presented at the 1937 
Annual Meeting of the WesternSociety of Engineers by James Shelby Thomas, 
in which he stated that with only 7% of the population of the world we 
produce half of the food crops of this planet, that half of the world's com- 
munication system belongs to us, that we use half of the world's coffee and 
tin and rubber, 3-4th's of its silk, 1-3 of the coal and 2-3 of all the crude 
oil in the world; and then goes on to defend the cause of the machine against 
those that blame on it some of the ills of the world. 

The American people lead the world in science and invention, but their 
geopolitical sense has not kept in step with developments, so there is cause 
to fear that in that respect the Tnited States is in the precarious predicament 
of the prehistoric dinosaur whose body grew too large for its head. Instead 
of ascribing the marvelous prosperity of the United S tates to its self-sufficiency 
and its isolation from the wars and the crushing burden of armaments and 
taxation that have kept the people of Europe in endless and hopeless poverty, 
a false theory has been created that this prosperity depends on eliminating 
other peoples from the markets of the world; a resurrection of the barbarous 
conceptions of biblical times in which conquering hosts put whole peoples 
to the sword. 

It is said that only a few dozen men in the world know the nature of 
money; and therefore these few men are allowed to practice the manipulation 
of money and of that mysterious commodity known as credit as a mystic 
rite, despite the fact that their machinations cause recurrent giant depressions 
in which many of the life savings of the people are lost, and cause recurrent 
gigantic bloodshed in which the people must sacrifice their lives to protect 
the manipulators from the fury of those nations and peoples who have been 


their victims; and despite the fact that eminent students cf high business, 
financial and social position, such as Vincent C. Vickers and Arthur Kitson, 
have condemned this money system as a fraud; have condemned the njgn 
who manipulate it as super-criminals and traitors to their own lands and 
peoples, and have condemned the recurring economic depressions and wars 
as the deliberate products of the money power. 

The deranged conception that a nation to retain its prosperity and to 
escape return to stagnation and poverty, must always continue to sell more 
than it buys, most certainly demands that some other nation or nations must 
always buy more than they sell. Once these other nations have exhausted 
their surplus gold and credits this process must end, and the account must 
be added up and balanced. To keep up American-British preponderance of 
sales the process was artifically extended and aggravated by the extension 
of immense credits by International Finance to those countries drained of 
gold, adding an immense interest burden to their already seriously strained 
economy, and thus paving the way to repudiation, anarchy and dictatorship 
as a release from an impossible dilemma. 

The power of International Finance rests upon the doctrine of govern- 
ment advanced by Niccolo Machiavelli, which holds that any means, however 
unscrupulous, may be justifiably employed in order to maintain a strong 
central government; and this doctrine has always been used as a vindication 
and the mandate of imperialists and dictators, and it cannot gain a foothold 
unless the forces of freedom have become undermined and are no longer able 
to offeropen opposition. (See footnote.) 

The people could regain their power by voting into office men definitely 
on record in opposition to International Finance. The power of International 
Finance could then be curbed by prohibiting any interchange of international 
values or credits by any private agency, and the prohibition of any inter- 
course or dealings by any government representative with any private agency, 
such as the Bank of England, in any foreign country. Foreign trade could be 
conducted under the supervision of a Commission formed of representatives 
of all nations, operating a central bank dealing only in credits arising out of 
commodity sales and purchases; permitting no interchange of gold or paper 
credits except under its strict supervision. By this means no nation would 
be able to sell more values than they are able to buy. The United States 

In a lengthy well-detailed article "Let's Quit Pretending" in the Saturday Evening 
Post of December 18, 1943, Demaree Bess described the extent of the deceptions and the 
contradictions by which "propagandists" and the Government have kept the American 
people in the dark as to their foreign position over a period of years. He described how 
far the American Government was actively engaged in war with unconditional commit- 
ments to foreign governments and foreign political factions months before Pearl Harbor. 
He dwelt also on the feare of many Americans that a "bad mess" may result in this country 
out of the expenditure of American lives and money to bring about a world such as 18 
apparently in the making. 


would not be affected very adversely as will be readily apparent from an 
examination of foreign trade statistics over the past 45 years, in short our 
foreign trade was never very important; and would actually profit by trade 
with a revived Europe. Nations with large populations and small natural 
resources and territory, being obliged to import heavily, would also be able 
to sell in proportion; thus overcoming a large part of the lack in self-sufficiency. 
Debtor nations to be permitted excess sales to liquidate their obligations, 
and their creditors to be penalized equivalent values in sales until the debts 
are liquidated. Other affairs between nations to be subject to a semi-formal 
organization such as the late Concert of Europe, electing its own temporary 
presiding officers and allowing no man, or nation, or group of nations a 
definite ascendancy; and subjecting each representative to qualification as 
to personal connection with any power or pressure group. 

As matters stand now, with the end of the war considered by many as 
a near-by possibility, there is little talk of a "Peace Conference" or of some 
world organization, such as the League of Nations of the last war, to take over 
after the war. It appears that the end of the war is to find the defeated in 
the position of apprehended criminals coming up to the bar to hear their 
sentence from the lips of the dictators of the "United Nations;" with sub- 
sequent events in the hands of "Post-War Planners." 

In the penetrating classic, "The American Commonwealth," published 
in 1888, lames Bryce stated: "The day may come when in England the 
question of limiting the at present all but unlimited discretion of the executive 
in foreign affairs will have to be dealt with, and the example c the American 
Senate will then deserve and receive careful study." A little reflection will 
indicate that the contrary has occurred, that the United States has become 
a subject of the "Laws of England." 



December 31, 1945 (2nd Edition) 

The foregoing matter of the first edition was written about two years 
ago and the "One World" camarilla has since advanced very close to its 
planned objective as may be apparent from a copy of the "Articles of Agree- 
ment of the International Monetary Fund and International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development," adopted at Bretton Woods, New Hamp- 
shire, July 22, 1944; which appeared in "International Conciliation, No. 413" 
dated September, 1945, a booklet issued by the Carnegie Endowment for 
International Peace with a preface by Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler. 

The following sentences were selected from Article IX, Sections 1 to 9: 

The fund shall possess full juridical personality. 

Shall have immunity from judicial process. 

Property and assets of the Fund, wherever located and by whom- 
ever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, ex- 
propriation, or any other form of seizure by executive or LEGISLATIVE 

The archives shall be held inviolable. 

... all properly and assets shall be free from restrictions, regulations, 
controls, and moratoria of any nature. 

The officers and personnel shall be immune from legal processes, 
immigration restrictions, alien registration requirements, and national 
service obligations; shall be immune from taxation and customs duties, 
immune from liability for taxes and duties. 

No taxation of any kind shall be levied on any obligation or security, 
dividend or interest of the Fund. 

This is obviously merely a precise rewording of the ambiguous provisions 
of the "Laws of England;" which, as variously developed hereinbefore, have 
placed the Bank of England over and above LEGISLATIVE ACTION 
heretofore, and made of it a sovereign world supergovernment; with the 
House of Commons prohibited even from discussing its activities, while the 
House itself was subject to the orders of "the executive" as to the legislation 
required by "The City." 


Thus the denizens of The City, who have heretofore been obliged to 
exist in furtive secrecy in the dark recesses of the Bank of England, are now 
able to abandon their lair to move into the magnificent structure of "One 
World" omnipotence erected by their henchmen, to rule their world realm 
in recognized and sublime dignity. 

The British economy is burdened with Numerous vested privileges which 
entitle their "proprietors" to everlasting perquisites out of the public funds. 
This "system6" is recognized and supported by the British Labor Party, 
whose leadership is patently fraudulent and is neither Liberal or Labor, as 
is apparent from its naive proposal to buy the now empty shell of the Bank 
of England from its owners with money to be procured from the people of 
the United States. That even the administration of the British public treasury 
admittedly comes into this category of private perquisite should be quite 

But these vested perquisites of the British ruling class blanket the earth, 
and are asserted with such nonchalant and brazen affrontery as to overawe 
dispute into dumbfounded inaction, and they include practically every basic 
commodity of world commerce and industry, be it international news, shipping 
and port rights, canal tolls, coaling monopolies, cartel control over rubber 
(to all appearance even to its manufacture in 'his country), colonial trade 
restrictions, or dictatorial disposition over vast segments of colonial empire. 

The weapons of the "system^" are bully and bluff, bribery and besmear, 
and the bewilderment of the public by being able through control or intimi- 
dation of public sources of information to accuse each v i the successive 
challengers of "One World" of its own ideology of world rule and exploitation; 
and to convict them of its own lies and crimes. 

The modem dictators were the deliberate creations of international 
finance to plunge the world into that chaos out of which alone it would be 
possible to fashion "One World." It was first necessary to make the people 
of all the world tractable and obedient to these plans in a successive procese 
involving in their planned turn the people of the United States. The method 
by which this could be achieved was indicated 25 years ago by a leading 
financial organ in these words: "When through process of law, the common 
people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily 
governed through the influence of the strong arm of Government, applied 
by the general power of wealth under control of leading financiers." 

The structure of world supergovernment revealed hereinbefore in docu- 
mented step by step detail receives almost daily verification in the news of 
greedy Imperialistic contest for the loot made possible by" American victory. 
The mask of sanctimonious hypocrisy usually assumed in these grabs has 
been largely dropped in the need for haste to beat Communism or Nationalism 
to the plunder in most of the lands of the world. 


The Chicago Tribune of Dec. 1, 1945, on its front page carried the inside 
story cf Senator Moore of Oklahoma, in which is made public the fact that 
the mystic British Government owns vast holdings in 80 of the largest Ameri- 
can industrial corporations, among which are listed 434,000 shares of General 
Motors and 315,000 shares of Standard Oil of Indiana. At a moment when 
the market has reached at 14 year peak, the "smart" money of the foreign 
clique which engineered the market excess of 1929 and thereby broke the back 
of the American economy, again overhangs the market. 

The American public was blindly led to the slaughter then like so many 
sheep being driven up the ramp at the abattoir, with endless years of ruin 
and fear to follow for the millions. Its government is now likewise being 
deliberately led into economic disaster, for history records that every excess 
is followed by reaction in direct proportion to its extremity. 

Lord Keynes is termed the world's most influential living economist and 
the key man of Britain's treasury, in an article by Noel F. Busch in the 
Sept. 17, 1945, issue of Life. Mr. Busch records that, as economic adviser 
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had come to Washington to obtain 
a satisfactory substitute for Lend-Lease. Lord Keynes, who is a neighbor 
in Cambridge of Lord Rothschild, and who is a director of the Bank cf 
England, and who was the chief financial adviser of David Lloyd George 
in drafting the financial clauses of the Versailles Treaty, is credited with 
being indirectly responsible for the New Deal policy of endless spending, 
and is revealed as the originator of the Bretton Woods plan. 

The financial clauses of the Versailles Treaty are perhaps the most 
fantastically unreal parts of this most perfidious instrument ever devised, 
and from a practical standpoint comprise merely so much gibberish. It is 
then significant to note that the leading protagonist of these clauses is de- 
scribed 25 years later as being consistently inconsistent in his economic con- 
cepts, with a remarkable facility to contradict himself whenever this seems 
appropriate. It is further developed that Keynes, who is a director also of 
a number of leading financial corporations of (The City," should not alone 
be blamed for the 1929 American market crash, which it is indicated he 
naturally foresaw a long time in advance, and out of which he personally 
profited immensely. 

On Dec. 9, 1945, Representative White of Idaho, cited voluminous statis- 
tics showing Great Britain has nearly 50 billion dollars worth of assets, 
among them 2J^ billion dollars invested in American industry. There is ir> 
indication of any comparable American holdings of British industry, never- 
theless the British Government demanded and was -awarded several billions 
of dollars on a plea of poverty, backed up with a threat of economic reprisal. 
The British Government had already been given about 30 billion dollars, 
much of it for non-war purposes and for reasons that were obviously incorrect 



and spurious, to the stage where the American economy is apparently out 
cf control and rapidly moving to destruction. 

Repr. White developed that while this lend-lease was under way to an' 
alleged bankrupt British Government, that British Government was able, 
by a financial mumbo-jumbo which does not permit the right hand to know 
what the left hand is doing, to purchase 600 million dollars of American gold; 
and that, in addition, it was lend-leased 300 million ounces of silver. Neither 
International Finance or any other system of financedisposesover any mysti- 
cal or magical formula, unless the periodical watering and unwatering of 
money values can be rated as such; and all these mysterious financial con- 
volutions in the end boil down to the simplest of simple arithmetic; to the 
continued plunder of the American economic system with the planned pur- 
pose of its destruction. 

Two interesting accounts appeared on the front page of the Chicago 
Tribune of Dec. 6, 1945. In one, Maj. Gen. Patrick J. Hurley, former special 
ambassador to China, charges career men in the state department with 
sabotaging American foreign policy by fighting for the imperialistic designs 
of Great Britain, Holland and France; nations, as developed hereinbefore, 
whose financial systems are dominated by The City. The other account is 
of the first dinner meeting of the Pilgrim Society since the outbreak of the 
war, in which it is identified as a "hands across the sea organization." It 
recounts that both Labor Prime Minister Atlee and the lord high chancellor 
of the Laborite government, Lord Jowitt, were among the speakers; and 
that Lord Jowitt had stated he had greeted the Japanese attack on Pearl 
Harbor, in which 3,000 Americans died, with "thank God for that." Prime 
Minister Atlee lauded the United States "for having conquered all and 
given great satisfaction to everybody here." 

It is likely that this dinner meeting was held at the ultra exclusive club 
of the Conservatives, the renowned Carlton Club, traditional meeting place 
of the Pilgrims. According to accounts, this club purveys the very finest in 
service of any club in all the world. It seems strange to find alleged Laboritea 
and Liberals as honored guests at this rededication function of their alleged 

The same newspaper in the same issue cf Dec. 6, 1945, entitles its lead- 
ing editorial, "Senators Who Lied;" and then develops that Senators Connally 
and Vandenberg welshed three months later on the pledges they and their 
fellow delegate, John Foster Dulles, associate of the American Pilgrim presi- 
dent, Dr. Nicholas Butler, on the board of the Carnegie Endowment for 
International Peace, had made to the American people at San Francisco. 

On Dec. 10, 1945, Gen. Hurley charged that the United Kingdom Com- 
mercial Corporation, a profit making corporation owned by the British 


government, was selling American lend-lease supplies in 18 countries and 
keeping the maney. This charge was termed "utterly fantastic" by Dean 
Acheson, Undersecretary of State, who stated further that Gen. Hurley never 
had understood the lend-lease system in the middle east. Mr. Hurley testified 
in a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on this date in part, 
as follows T "The British corporation was selling American automobile tires. 
I required the corporation to put the money in the bank to pay for them. 
And I am told the money was given back to the corporation later by Mr. 

Gen. Hurley i s an eminent attorney, soldier and statesman, who was 
awarded the distinguished service medal as a general officer in World War I, 
and who served as Secretary of War in the last Republican administration. 
His charge, i# effect, of treachery and treason, was insolently and con- 
temptuously dismissed as mere exaggerationand lack of ordinary intelligence. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt asserted that economists have revised their funda- 
mental conceptions every few years to conform with the trend of economic 
tides. But our leading legal lights have moved with the celerity of weather 
vanes in revising their conceptions and interpretations and application of 
basic Constitutional law in order to remain compatible with their status on 
the public payroll. It would seem that the weasel worded interpretations of 
leading jurists threaten to undermine and bring discredit, not only to its 
practitioners, but to the entire American legal structure. 

The Constitution of the United States is written in plain words, and these 
words were intended to apply in their broadest meaning. It is not written in 
legal terminology, and does not require and should not tolerate the layer 
upon layer of pseudo legal inhibitions with which it has been encrusted, with 
each successive layer drawing increasing sustenance from preceding layers; 
to the end, that the Internationalist clique is now able to nullify any part 
of it at will. 

Opposed by only 7 votes, the United States Senate, whose members are 
incidentally largely lawyers, voted to surrender part of the functions of the 
Senate and to set aside part of the Constitution of the United States, that 
Constitution which alone is authority for the existence of a Senate, and to 
delegate these functions to a foreign organization of world government; 
which by the provisions cited previously herein proposes thereafter to be no 
longer, subject to any legislative action. 

Members of the Congress have been subject to an intensive process of 
intimidation. Leading Nationalists were nearly all Republicans and many of 
them were already eliminated in 1932 to 1936. The lot of the transgressor 
against the plans of the "One Worlders" has been a hard and unhappy one 
since then. More of the most outstanding Nationalists were eliminated by 


lavish use cf the taxpayers money for vicious smear campaigns. The American 
people have been literally drugged by propaganda. Big lies have become 
exposed, but have been simply wiped out by bigger lies. Cf these bigger lies, 
such as his "Give us the tools" and other monstrous exaggerations, Winston 
Churchill has nonohalantly observed that he lied because it was necessary. 

The International clique would obviously attempt to frustrate counter 
attack on their astonishing and complicated pseudo legal structure of en- 
croachment, by guiding this attack into the groove of procrastination, in- 
direction, capriciousness and pure duplicity which has become a mark of 
American legal procedure in matters of this kind, and which made even the 
conviction of city gang leaders operating with the connivance of their own 
legal talent nearly impossible. This would mean that the finely limned maze 
of legal duplicity designed by them would have to be laboriously retraced 
and unsnarled, with scant chance of success. 

American jurisprudence has become a ponderous and pompous tool of 
frustration of justice, in which legal technicalities permit the introduction of 
vast masses of matter unrelated to the direct issue and so permit the issue 
to be submerged. As officers of the court, the legal fraternity is accustomed 
to glibly interject its own versions to obscure the real issue and long practical 
observation indicates that no matter how obviously unreal they are, they 
seldom meet with rebuke from the court. It deliberately insults and belittles 
the public in the role of witness and puts on a show of extravagant professional 
superiority, not assumed by the members of any learned profession, in what 
can be termed pure judicial arrogance. The abominations of mass trials, 
which the legal profession has tolerated with but slight protest, can well be 
laid on its doorstep. 

To cut this Gordian knot of organized and disorganized frustration, and 
to reduce this complex situation to its least common denominator, it would 
seem that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself directly and 
needs no interpretations or interpreters; that the morning after the people 
have awakened to their peril and have elected a Congress of American 
Nationalists, these things and secret world orders will have ceased. The 
fantastic structure of world wide plunder and exploitation of humanity, 
masquerading as world law and order, is becoming more exposed day by day 
as its organizers climb further out on a limb, and it would then only await 
orderly disposition. 

The principal purpose of the League of Nations was to validate Inter- 
nationalist plunder with a spurious seal of world law and to gain time for its 
proponents to prepare for the inevitable World War II. The United Nations 
Organization is a product of the same group, in fact of many of the same 
men, and its purpose is precisely the same and to prepare for the inevitable 
World War III. The presumption with which the henchmen of this racket 


are forcing their agents into control of still not fully subdued sovereign 
nations of Europe, Asia and South America, provides only a superficial pre- 
view of the endless bloody pacification that lies ahead, in which the money 
of the American taxpayer and the blood of American boys is to carry a large 
part of the cost. 

The same group has succeeded in erasing even the memory of the Con- 
cert of Europe from the public mind, despite the fact that it functioned up 
to 1898 and that its agreements were still used as the basis for the Conference 
at Algeciras in 1906. In its approximately 85 year life it had erected an 
imposing structure of International Law. When the International clique 
sabotaged and destroyed this legitimate and effective structure of world law 
and order, they destroyed its International Law. The Internationalist pre- 
tention that laws substituted by them largely through the device of the 
"Order-in-Council" constitutes International Law rests on pure deceit. 

The former precisely worded agreements between the nations made under 
the auspices of the Concert of Europe, blanketed the world. This machinery 
of arbitration was first undermined by secret bribery, then gradually dis- 
integrated and demolished by "The City" through conspicuous and flagrant 
purchase of votes and general intimidation of the minor nations. "The City" 
administered the coupe de grace to the Concert of Europe with the formation 
of the overwhelming British-French-DutchJapanese-American imperialistic 
combine of 1897, which awarded the Philippine Islands and permission to 
build the Panama Canal to America as her quid pro quo. 

Thus did International Finance degrade the world back to the law of 
the jungle. Then, to cover up, it immediately organized the abortive and 
make-believe Hague World Court in 1899 as a stopgap to confound humanity 
until its forces could be aligned for the now imminent and inevitable World 
War I. The decisive moment for this conflict came when the control of Italy 
had been bought for its agents, and Italy could be removed from its Triple 
Alliance with Germany and Austria-Hungary. The hallucination that Britain 
and its allies were then the innocent victims of an unprovoked and unantici- 
pated attack is a triumph of the propaganda machine of "The City," and 
its almost absolute control over world news and sources of public information. 

The utterly spurious nature of the Hague Court is readily evident from 
the few piddling and immaterial issues that were allowed to enter its hallowed 
portals for disposition in the period from 1899 to 1914, while none of the 
victims of the rampant British Imperialistic expansion of this period, and not 
one of the earth-shaking conflicts just prior to World War I, could gain a 

The United States has been tricked into a position of boundless peril 
and foreign nations will continue to take advantage of its fallacious position 


by shameless and insolent demands for huge subsidies in the guise of loans; 
actually little more than blackmail of American power politicians, certain to 
lose their voice in world politics like did Mr. Wilson after World War I, unless 
they continue to give. 

Great nations and great civilizations have been spent into cataclysm 
and chaos in the past, and we can read with foreboding the words of James 
J , Hill, railway empire builder, delivered in an address at Chicago on October 
7, 1908, in which he said in part: "I need not remind you that our public 
credit, though vast, is not inexhaustible. Many of us have seen the day when 
it was strained to the breaking point. None of us knows when we may again 
need to rely upon it and when its strength or weakness va]l determine whether 
the nation is to live or to die. Of all our resources, perhaps, this one should 
be guarded with most jealous care; first because we can never know in ad- 
vance where exhaustion begins. The earth and its products tell us plainly 
about what we may expect of them in the future; but credit is apparently 
unlimited at one moment and in collapse at the next. The only safe rule 
is to place no burdens upon it that may be avoided; to save it for days of 
dire need .... 

"Search history and see what has been the fate of every nation that 
abused its credit. It is the same, only more wful in its magnitude and its 
consequences, as that of the spendthrift individual. And it will profit us 
nothing to conserve what we have remaining of the great national resources 
that were the dower of this continent unless we preserve the national credit 
as more precious than them all. WHEN IT SHALL DE EXHAUSTED 

(The End) 


"Act of State" 28 

Adams, Prof. George Burton 27, 28, 61 

Aden Administration 55 

Africa 37,41 

Agadir Crisis 41, 66 

Agreement of 1897. Secret. 12, 30. 33. 46. 79. 93 

Agreements of 1896 and 1898 30 

Agreement of April a 1904 41, 43 

Aldrich. Senator Nelson 64.73 

Alexander 1 84 

Alexander II 90 

Algeciras, Conference at 38, 41, 74. 92. 104 

"America for the Americans" 86, 88 

American Commissioners 34, 43, 55 

"American Commonwealth. The" 97 

American Fable 89 

American Federation of Labor 91 

American foreign trade 58 

American jurisprudence 103 

American machine of 1897 81 

American machine of 1933 81 

American market crash 71, 100 

American political machine of 1896 SO 

American standard of living 79. 97 

American tourists 47 

"America's Strategy in World Politics" 1 1 .80. 94 

Amritsar, Massacre of 16 

Anglo-German Fellowship 94 

Anglo-Irish War 16 

Anglo-Russian Agreement of Aug. 31, 1907. . 89 

Annual Encyclopedia of 1868 70 

Arabi Pasha 22 

Arms and munitions makers 46 

"Army Life in Russia" 21, 24, 54 

Arnhold & Co., Ltd. 72 

Aryan Anglo-Saxon race 81 

"Asia for the Asiatics" 29, 79 

Associated Press $5 

Atcheson, Undersecretary Dean 102 

Atlee, Prime Minister 101 

Atlantic Charter 57 

"Background of War" 47 

Balance of Power. The. .7, 11, 20, 21, 24, 25, 36 
37, 38. 40. 45. 61, 62 
79. 83, 84, 86. 92, 94 

Baldwini Stanley 60 

Balfour, A. J 44.75 

Balkan Wars 13, 53 

Balla, Ignatius 70 

Bank of China 72, 75 

Bank of China and Japan 72, 73 

Bank of England. ..27, 28, SO. 35, 57. 59. 60. 65 
66.70. 93.97. 98. 99. 100 

"Barriers Down" 35 

"Basic History of the U. S." 4. 75 

Battle of Manila 30, 93 

"Battle of the Nations" 11, 67 

Battle of Navarino 87 

Battle of Waterloo. 67 

Bauer, Maier Amschel 68 

Beaconsfield, Lord 64 

Beard. Charles A. and Mary R 4, 75 

Beaverbrook. Lord 36 

Berlin to Bagdad Railway 40, 45 

Berlin memorandum of May 13, 1876 52 

Bess. Demaree 96 

"Better Times" 28, 57, 66, 70. 78 

"Between Tears and Laughter" 49 

"Big Fouri The" 44 

Bismarck, Count Otto von 18, 19, 20, 90 

Bluecher, General 68 

Boer War 13, 53 

Bolshevism 45, 86 

Borodin, Soviet Gen. Michael 74 

Bowman. Dr. Isaiah 42 

Boxer War of 1 900 14, 1 5. 35, 47, 53. 74 

Boycott of German made goods 81 

Bretton Woods plan 98, 100 

Britain's perennial enemy Russia 8. 90 

British agents 15, 89. 94 

British-American relations 47 

British Burma Petroleum Co 72 

British Cabinet 27, 42 

British censorship S4 

British colonial orbit 80 

British Commonwealth of Nations 52, 54 

British Constitution 60, 61. 78 

British encirclement 94 

British financial oligarchy 65, 66 

British Foreign Office. .16, 87, 38, 41. 43. 47. 53 

Alliance of 1897.1920 13,131, 100 

British-French division of Africa 9%.74 

British-French-Dutch-Orientalcombine 73 

British-French oligarchy 26, 38, 46, 47 

51, 53, 88. 94 

British-French-Polishbloc 46 

British Imperialism 50, 100 

Britishiiap My 74 

British Labor party 99 

British Liberal press 66 

British navalism 83 

British Navigation Acts 57 

British nobility 88 

British policy 11, 39 

British restrictions 86, 94 

British ruling class 88 

British sea-power 80 

British territorial growth 56 

British world state 49, 63 

Brittain, Sir Harry 63, 64. 91. 94 

Brown. Sir MacLeavy 36 

Bryan. William Jennings 34, 91 

Bryce, lord James 93, 97 

Buchanan, President 89 

Bullard, Arthur (in Century Mag.) 39 

Busch, Noel F .100 

Butler. Dr. Nicholas Murray 5, 31, 32, 60 

63. 98. 101 
Butler. Gen. Smedley 46.47 

Cambon-Lansdowne Agreement 41 

Campaign of 1815 84 . 

"Captains and The Kings Depart The". . . ' 
Carlton Club. \,.,- *. ,'lOjk 


Carnegie. Andrew .53, 60. 64 

Carnegie Endowment for 

International Peace 5. 10. 98. 101 

Caroline Islands 36 

"Case for India. The" 55 

Cassel, Sir Ernest 94 

Cassini, Count 36 

Castlereagb, Lord 84 

,'Challenge of the Future. The" 95 

Chamberlain. Neville 50 

Chamberlain. Joseph 34, 58 

"Charter oi the Atlantic, The" 56, 57 

Chiang Kai-shek r Gen.. 14, 15. 47. 48. 49. 74. 80 

"Chiangs of China. The" 73.74 

Chicago Council of Foreign Relations 78 

Chicago Tribune. The 16, 100. 101 

Chichester. Captain 31 

China Consortium 33 

Chinese aggression 48 

Chinese Dynasty , 14, 30 

Chinese Nationalists 14. 15. 26. SO. 35 

46. 48. 74. 80 

Chinese revolt of 1926 14, 46, 47, 49, 74, 80 

Choate, Joseph 64 

Churchill, Winston. 37, 50, 53, 55, 56, 58 

63, 75. 78. 93. 103 

Church. Major Elihu 63 

Church of England 52 

Citadel of International Finance 57, 64 

City of London 59, 66 

"THE C I T Y . . .5, 8. 15. 20. 28, 35, 38, 40, 53 

56. 57. 59. 60. 61. 64. 65. 66, 69 

70. 71. 72, 92, 98. 99. 100. 101. 104 

Civil War 12, 89. 90. 92 

Clapp, Prof. Edwin J 28, 61, 93 

Clark. Elmer T 73 

Clemenceau, Georges 56, 66, 84 

Cockburn, Sir Alexander. 90 

Commissar of the Rusian Foreign 

Trade Monopoly 95 

Committee of Foreign Relations of 

the U. S. Senate 5, 40. 44 

Concert of Europe 21, 23. 25, 26, 29. 31. 40 

45. 50. 52, 90. 92, 97. 104 

Conference of Algeciras 38, 41. 92, 104 

Conferenceat Amsterdam in 1933 81 

Conference of p Dec., 1876 52 

Congress of Aix-la-Chappelle 23 

Congress of Berlin 25, 29 

Congress of Carlsbad 23 

Congress of London 23 

Congress of Verona 23 

Congress of Vienna 23, 83, 84 

Congressional Record 55 

ConnaUy, Senator 101 

Conservatives 50, 53, 64. 56. 57. 65, 78. 101 

Constantinople 14 

"Constitutional History of England" 27 

Constitutionof the United States 63, 64, 102, 103 

"Controversial matter" 10 

Coolidge. President Calvin 10, 47, 74, 80 

Cooper. Kent 85 

Cotton-growingaristocracy 89 

"Council of Four" 45 

Cox. James E 13, 45 

Cramb. Prof. J. A 66, 94 

Cranbourne, Under-Sec'y of Foreign Affairs. 40 

Crimean War 12, 20. 25, 89 

"Crown." The 28, 55, 59, 60, 61. 65. 92 

Cyprus &5 

Dante 76 

Dardanelles. 14 

Dardanelles campaign 53 

Davenport. Guiles 66 

"Day of the Saxon. The" 7 

Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde 27, 50 

Democratic ticket of 1920 45 

"De Monarchia" 76 

Depew. Chauncey M 12, 13, 30, 32, 33 

63, 73. 79. 80. 91 

Derby. Lord 24, 25 

Dewey. Admiral George 30, 31 

Dickinson, Don M 63 

Dictators of Europe 54 

Dictum of Imperialism 51 

Diederichs. Vice-Admiral von 31 

Disraeli, Benjamin 21, 50. 51. 52, 57. 62, 70 

Dowager Empress 30 

Downing Street 66, 73, 93 

Duke of Argyll 52 

Dulles, John Foster 10, 101 

Duma. Russian 39 

Durant, Dr. Will 55 

Dyer. Brig. Gen 55, 56 

Eastern Bank 72 

Eastern Question. ..17, 18. 20, 21, 23. 24, 25, 62 

"Economic Aspects of the War" 28, 61, 03 

"Economic Depressions" J)3 

"Economic Tribulation" 60 

Editors of Fortune 47 

Edward VII. King 70, 75 

Elba 67 

Election of 1932 48 

"Egypt for the Egyptians" 22 

Egyptian Revolutions 16, 22 

Egyptian Soudan 13, 22. 51 

Egyptian War 12, 22. 51 

Empress Dowager 30 

Encyclopedia Americana . .27, 61, 68. 70 

Encyclopedia Britannica ! . .27, 44. 62, 66 

Engelbrecht, H. C, Ph. D 46 

"England's Money Lords Tory M. P." 27.64. 94 

"England's World Empire" 83, 86 

English Judaism 61 

English and French bankers 69 

Esher, Viscount Reginald 9. 40. 68. 73 

European Congress 26 

"Europe and the East" 36 

Exploitation of China 48 

Far East 37, 38, 41. 83. 88. 91 

Farrell, Pres. (U.S. Steel Corp) 33 

Fascism 45 

Federal Reserve Board of N. Y 93 

Federation of the World 84 

Financial Commission at Genoa 85 

Financial octopus 68 

Financial oligarchy 48, 77 


Fitzgerald. Capt. Derek Barrington 7% 

"Forbidden City" $$ 

Foreign Trade Statistics 80, 97 

Fortification of Canal Zone 98 

"Fortune. The" 68 

"Forty Years of British-American 

Fellowship" 63 

"Fourteen Points" 58, 84 

Franco-Prussian War. 14, 20, 45 

"Frankenstein" 49 

Franz-Ferdinand. Archduke 41 

Freedom of the Seas. The 64, 9% 

"From Isolation to Leadership" 02 

"Full Dinner Pail. The" 14, 30, 91 

"Genuine Freedom of the Seas" 57, 58 

George. David Lloyd W. 44. 45. 67. 66 

70. 74, 78. 86. 100 

German colonies 54 

German jingoism 37 

German Kaiser 9% 

German Navy 31 

German pirates 58 

"Germany and England". 67 

Gladstone. William Ewert. . . .19, 40, 46, 48, 50 

61. 68. 67. 66 

Gompers. Samuel 91 

Gordon. Gen. Chas. G. (Gordon 

Pasha— "Chinese" Gordon) 44, 46, 51 

Granger. A. H 83, 86 

Granville. Lord 19 

"Great Britain. Banking in" 47 

Greene, Lieut. E. V 41, 44, 34 

Grenfell, Gen. Lord 63 

Grey. Viscount Edward. . .45, 37, 39, 51. 53. 60 
Gunther. John 77 

Hague Conference 34, 37 

Hague World Court 104 

Haldane, Lord 63 

Halsbury, Lord. 48, 51, 63. 59. 60. 61. 94. 97. 98 

Hammond, John Hays 38 

Hanighen. F. C 46 

Harris. Norman Dwight &3 

Hauser, Ernest 74 

Havas Agency &5 

Haxey, Sion 47, 6 4 9 4 

Hay. John 36 

Hay-Pauncefote Treaties 9% 

Henry IV 52 

Herrick, Col 63 

Hill. James J. 105 

Hintze. Lieut, von 31 

Hitler, Adolf 46, 88 

Hobson, Mr 64 

Hohenzollern Imperialism 75, 76 

Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, Prince Leopold.. 19 

Home Secretary 53 

Holy Alliance 84 

Hongkong 49, 30 

Hoover. Herbert 43 

House of Commons 48, 55. 6L. 98 

House. CoL E. M 4L 44 

House of Savoy 18, 40 

"How Fast Can Russia Rebuild?" 94 

Hueffer. Ford Madox 84 

Hurley, Maj. Gen. Patrick J 101, 10% 

Hussey, Admiral Chas. L 78 

Illustrated Universal History of 1878. . . .85 89 

Imperialisticaggression 54 

Imperial Bank of Persia 78 

Imperialistic rampage of 1897 to 1914 51 

Indian outrages 56 

Indian Revolution 16, 55 

Industrial Revolution 31 

"Inside Europe". 77 

International camarilla 9 

International clique 47, 48, 104, 103. 104 

"International Conciliation. No. 413" 08 

International Convention of Bankers 

on Mexico 33 

International Finance. . 4. 15, 40, 3%. 39, 40. 41 

42, 46. 46. 48. 60. 66. 66 

67. 60. 61. 64. 66. 7%. 73 

77. 86, 88. 91. 93, 94. 96. 100 

International Imperialists 3% 

International Law 28. 31.68. 61, 93, 104 

International Monetary Fund and Inter- 
national Bank for Reconstruction and 

Development 98 

"Intimate Papers of Col. House" 44, 44 

"Iron Hand. ' British policy of the 15 

Isaacs, Rufus 64, 66 

Isolation 34, 87 

Italy. King of 20 

Italy's reward 44 

Jameson Raid 38 

Japanese Banking system 48 

Japanese commercial expansion 48 

Jefferson, Thomas 9 

"Jewish money lending business" 61 

Jones. Jesse 74 

Jowitt. Lord 101 

Jordan. David Starr 9. 48 

Julianwala Bagh 56 

Kaiochow leased (1898) SO 

Kennedy. A L 85 

Keynes. Lord Maynard 100 

Khan of Khiva 20 

Khan of Khokand 20 

Khartoum 51 

"King Can Do No Wrong. The" 61 

King-in-Council 40, 61 

King of Italy._ 20 

King of Prussia ■ 3D 

Kitchener. Lord 24 

Kitson, Arthur 93, 06 

Knox, Sec'y of Navy, Frank 68 

Koran. The 24 

Korean finances 36 

Kwang-Hsu. Emperor SO 

Kwantung Peninsula S5 

La Follette, Bobt. M.. Sr 64 

Lampton, Capt. Hedworth 68 

Lamont, Thomas J 10, 33, 63.64 

Lancastsbire Steel Corp 27 


Langen Senator 10 

Lansdowne, Lord 37 

LasB Harold J 48, 40 

Latane. Prof. J. H 92 

Lawi A. Bonar 50 

"Laws of England" 88, 51, 53, 69. 60 

61, 94. 97. 98 
League of Nations. . . . 15, 23, 45. 46. 47. 97. 103 

League Covenant 48 

Lea. Homer 7 

Lend-lease 49, 101. 102 

"Lest We Forget" 34, 43. 91 

"Let's Quit Pretending" 96 

LiaoYang, Battle of 36 

Ljberals 50, 51, 58. 53, 66, 78. 99 

Liberal-Labor 50 

"Life" 74,100 

"Life of W. E. Gladstone" 51, 57 

Li Hung-Chang 86. 30, 36, 72 

Li Hung-Chang — Lobanov Treaty 30 

Lincoln, Abraham 46, 89. 90 

Lindbergh, Col. Charles 10 

Lindbergh, Congressman C. A, 10 

Lin Yutang 49 

Lippmann. Walter 4 

Lisiviski. Admiral 90 

Lloyd-George, David 28, 44, 45. 57. 66 

70. 72, 78. 85. 100 

Lodge. Senator Henry Cabot 73 

London Saturday Review 34 

Lytton Committee 47 

Machiavelli. Niccolo 8, 76, 77, 73. 96 

Machiavellian government 74 

MacMillan Committee 93 

"Made in Japan" 81 

Madrid Convention of 1880 37, 43 

Mahan, Rear Admiral Alfred T 73 

Mahdi, The 22 

Manchurian (conquest-occupation- 
dispute) 14, 47. 48 

Mansion House 66 

Mariana Islands 36 

Marois. Andre 52 

Marshall Islands S6 

Massacre of Amritsar 55 

Matsuoka, Mr 47 

Maximillian, Archduke 90 

McDonald. J. Kamsay.25, 88. 50, 51, 54, 60. 66 

McKinley Tariff 79 

McKinley. William 12, 13, 30, 32, 58 .80 

"Memoirs of the Peace Conference" 45, 85 

"Memoirs" of Wilhelm II 29 

"Merchants of Death". 46 

Metropolitan Police of London 59 

Metternich 84 

Mexican emperor 90 

Mexican venture 90 

Middle-East 38, 41. 83, 88 

Mitsiu, House of 73, 74 

Mohammedan. 88, 89 

Moltke. General von 19 

Money Power. The 1 10, 64. 93, 96 

Monroe Doctrine 87, 88. 89. 91, 92 

Moore. Senator, of Oklahoma 100 

"More Abundant Life. The" B 

Morgan. J. P. & Co 10, 33. 64. 73 

Morgenthau, Henry. Jr fi 

Morley. John 52, 57 

Morocco "Affair" 13, 41 

Morocco Conference 9S 

Morocco Conflict 13, 37. 74 

Mosely . Sir Oswald 94 

"Most Favored Nations" treaties 46, 61, 81 

Mount Temple, Lord 94 

Mukden. Battle of St 

Mussolini. Benito 44 

"My Memories of Eighty Years" (Depew). . 3S 

Naples House 6£ 

Napoleon 1 11, 24, 67, 6$ 

Napoleon III 19, 9( 

Napoleonic War 11, 12, 14. 17. 83. 84 

Nationalism 1( 

Nazi Germany 5L 

Near-East 38, 41.55. 8L 

New Britain Magazine 9L 

New Deal policy 10( 

New Era 84 

"New Leader" 51 

"New Order of Freedom. The" 31, 34. SI 

"New Republic" 4( 

"New Statesman and Nation. The" 4! 

Nicolson, Sir Arthur 41, 4S 

Nikolaus, Grand Duke 21 

"ninety millions to feed" 71 

Norman. C. H 8L 

Nye, Senator Gerald i 

Official banker of the British government. . . 6L 

"Old Diplomacy and New" 8( 

"Old Gimlet Eye" i\ 

Old Jewry 31 

Olney, Secretary 8' 

"100*' Days, the 6: 

"One Man- Wendell Willkie" 1( 

"One World" camarilla 9, 98, 10! 

"One World" ideology (order) 5, 8, 9( 

Opium traders 7i 

Opium War 14, 26.31 

Orange Eraa State Si 

Orbit of British Finance 8( 

"Order-in-Council" 55, 59, 61, 93, 10< 

Ottoman Empire & 

Oyama. Field Marshall 31 

Pacific an American lake 12, 

Pacific a British lake 

Pacific a Japanese lake 

Page. Walter 

Panama Canal 92, 

Pan-American ideology 86, 87. 88. 91 

"Pan-Americanism" (Usher) 29, 

"Pan-Germanism" (Usher). . . .30, 39, 69, 81 

Pan-German ideology 

"Panther." German gun-boat 

Parliament Act of 1911 

"Parliament of Man. The" 

Peace Table-Conference— Treaty 37, 42, 43 

45. 84.85 









"Peace cf the world secure for all eternity" 79. 80 

Pearl Harbor 58, 96. 101 

"The Peers and Public Opinion" 66 

Pekin, Storming of 14 

Perfidious Albion 11 

Persian Conflict 13, 48 

Persian Gulf 38, 46 

Persian Shah 39, 48 

Philby. St. John 65 

Philippine Islands 32, 36. 104 

Pilgrim founder 33 

"Pilgrim Partners" 63, 91 

Pilgrim Society 5. 9. 10. 32, 33. 60, 62 

63. 64. 91. 94. 101 

Pitt. William 18 

"Policy of encirclement" 35, 61. 79. 80 

Policy-of isolation 87, 92 

Political conspiracy 46 

Pontifical States of Italy 20 

PoDe. The 20 

Popov, Admiral , 90 

Port Arthur . . . ... 36 

Porte. The 18, 21, 25 

"Portrait of a Diplomatist" 42 

Post- War rjlanners 97 

Potsdam Agreement of 1910 39 

"Prince. The". . ._ R. 76 

Pro-Japanese policy 48 

Propagandists 96 

Pseudo-Liberal 50 

Queen Victoria 40 

Reading. Lord 64, 66 

Redesdale. Lord 94 

Rengo Kev/s Agency 35 

"Republicor Empire?" 34, 91 

R publican National Convention of 1900. . . 12 
Republican National Convention of 1940. . . 10 

Republican Party 10 

Reuters News Agency 35 

Review of Reviews. May. 1902 79 

Revolutions. Chinese, 14 

Reynolds, Geo. M 64 

Rhodes. Cecil 5. 9. 38. 48. 62. 63. 64. 79. 88 

Rhodes. Col. Francis 38 

Rhodes Foundation 62 

Rhodes ideology 79, 80 

Right Hon. Englishman 58 

Roberts. Field Marshal Lord 63 

Rockefeller-Morgan machine. . . .6. 9. 73. 79. 88 

Rockefeller. House of 64, 73 

"Romance of the Rothschilds. The" 70 

Root. Secretary of State 87 

Roth, Dr. Cecil 72, 75 

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. . 13. 45, 46. 75. 103 
Roosevelt, Theodore 12, 13, 32, 38, 42, 73, 74, 92 

Rosebery. Earl of 50 

Rothschild, British House of . . 36, 46. 68. 69. 70 

71. 72, 76. 79 

Rothschild. Maier Amschel 68, 69. 70 

Rothschild. Baron Nathan 69 

Rothschild, Baron Lionel Nathan 19, 70 

Rothschild, Lord Nathaniel Maier 19, 32, 33 

57. 66. 70 

Rothschild. Lord Lionel Nathan 70, 10 

Rothschild. Alfred 7 

Rothschild. Leopold 7 

Rothschild. French House of . .19, 35, 69. 70. 7 

Rothschild. Baron James de (Jacob) 69, 7 

Rothschild. Baron Edouard de 70, 7 

Rothschild. Aline de 7 

Rothschild. Continental Houses 68, 69. 7 

Rothschild. Baron Anselm Maier 

Rothschild. Baron Solomon 6 

Rothschild. Baron Karl 69, 7 

Rothschild. Baron Maier Karl 6 

Rothschild. Wilhelm Karl 6 

Rothschild-Vickersally 7 

Royal Mi Force 5 

Ruling class perfidy 4 

Russian-Japanese War 13, 53, 7 

Russian Pan-Slavic ideology 8 

Russian seizure of Warm Water Ports 1 

Salisbury. Lord. .50, 53. 80. 8 

San Stefano, Treaty of . 
Sassoon. David & Co. . . 



Sassoon, E- D- Banking Co 7 

Sassoon, E- D- & Co., Ltd 7 

Sassoon, House of 72.73. 7 

Sassoon, Sir Philip 7 

Sassoon. Sir Victor 7 

"Sassoon Dynasty, The" 7 

Saturday Evening Post, The 43, 94, 8 

Scourge of Napoleon. The 8 

Secession of South Carolina 8 

Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. . . .51, 6 

Secret agreement of 1897 12, 30, 33, 46. 7 

Secret commitments 7 

Secret deal 4 

Secret diplomacy fl 

Secret government A 

Secret organization 4, 8 

Secret society 5, 62. 6 

Secret treaties 37, 4 

Secret world orders 10 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee. .5, 44. 10 

"Senators Who Lied" 10 

Seymour. Prof. Charles 42, 4 

"Shall It Be Again". 33, 9 

Shipstead. Senator Henrik 

"Short History of English Liberalism. A" . . . 3 

Siam 1 

Simon. Mr. John 47, 4 

"Sixth Great Power of Europe" 59, 67. 6 

Snowden, Philip 4 

Snow. Edgar 9 

Soon. Charles Jones 7 

Soong, T. V 73,74.7 

South African Republic S5, 5 

South American Conflict. 1 

Southern politicians 8 

Sovereign 6 

Spanish-American War 13, 3 

Sparkes. C. Nelson 1 

Sprague. Mr 9 

Spykman, Prof. Nicholas J . . , . 11, 80. 9 

Statute of Westminster of 1931 6 

Stead. W. T 7 


Sub-Commission No. 1 86 

"Subsequent addresses" 84 

Sudan War 18 

Suez Canal 21, 40.41 

Sultan 21 

"Systeme. The" 66. 72. 99 

Tardieui Andre 92 

Theories of geopolitical thought 80, 92. 93 

Thomas. James Shelby 95 

Thomas. Lowell 47 

Threadneedle Street 93 

Tory Party 50.94 

Totalitarian countries 10 

Towne. Congressman Chas. A 34, 48, 91, 9$ 

"Treading Softly in China" 47 

Treaty of Berlin 21, 25.29 

Treatyi Li Hung-Chang — Lobanov (1896) . . 93 

Treaty of London 44 

Treaty of Paris 11 

Treaty of Peace between Japan and Russia. . 36 

Treaty of San Stefano 21, 25, 29 

Treaty of April 19. 1839 43 

Treaty of 1856 20 

Treaty of January Sft 1903 35, 48 

Treaty of August, 1905 36 

Triple Alliance 104 

Tripoli War 13, 38 

"Triumphant Democracy" 60 

Tsarigrad 14 

Turkish War 12, 17 

Turner. John K 33, 92 

Ulster War 16 

Unionists 50, 53 

"Union Now" 62, 73. 82 

United Nations Organization. 97, 103 

United Kingdom Commercial Corporation. . 101 

"U. S. Foreign Policy" 4 

"United States and Great Britain. The". ... 78 

University of Chicago Press 78 

Usher. Prof. Roland G. . .29, 30, 48, 69, 81.82. 95 

Vandenberg. Senator 101 

Van Dyke. Rev. Henry 91 

Venezuela boundary dispute 87 

Venizelos. Eleutherios 73 

Versailles Treaty 100 

Vickers-Armstrong 28, 36 

Vickers, Ltd 46, 60 

Vickers. Vincent Cartwright 28, 60, 65. 96 

Wahnsien. City of 14 

Wanliu, British steamer 14 

Wallace. Sir Donald Mackenzie 41 

Wall Street 30, 33. 99 

"War and Democracy. The" 84 

"war to end all wars" 46 

War of 1812-1815 67 

Weaver. Gen. J. B 58 

Wellea. Sumner 47 

Wellington. Duke of 67 

Wells, Gideon 90 

Wells, KG 75.76 

Western Society of E n g i i r s 95 

"What is Coming? A European Forecast" . . 75 
"What the Machine Has Done to Mankind" 95 

Wheeler. Gen. Joseph E 90, 91 

"When Blood is Their Argument" 84 

Whitaker's British Almanac 64 

White. Ambassador Henry 38, 92 

White. Repr. of Idaho 100, 101 

White. William Allen 5.88 

"Why We Are At War" 25 60 

Wilhelmina. Ship 28 

"Willkie, Wendell— One Man" 10 

Williamsi Adm. Clarence S 47 

William L King of Prussia 19 

William II. Kaiser 2fl 

Will of Peter the Great 86, 87 

Wilson "ideals". 56 

Wilson, J. Dover 84 

Wilson. Woodrow. .15 37. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44, 45 
55. 86. 58.74, 84, 92. 105 

Wolff Agency &5 

World Almanac 58, 71 80 

"World Review. The" 55 

World supergovernment 9t 

World War I. . . 4. 7. 10. 13. 14. 16. 17. 25, 33 

35. 36. 37. 39, 40. 41. 43. 44, 45 

46. 51. 53. 54, 56. 87. 66, 69. 70 

74. 75. 84, 82, 102, 104. 105 

World War II 7, 13, 14.57. 74. 84. 103 

World War III 7, 103 

Yale Institute of International Studies 11 

Yang Sen, General 14 

Yellow War 14, 72 

Yerkes, Chas. T 63 

"You May Be Sure I Shall Fight Shy" 43 

"Zaharoff. High Priest of War" 66 

Zaharoff. Sir Basil 36, 40. 66, 73 



When the propaganda mi I la began their characteristic grind to- 
wards war in the early 1930's, the writer began a more definite study 
of international power politics, and soon found it an entrancing and 
revealing subject. There wt£ , however, no more free speech; and the 
most amazing documented aspects of a vast secret world order of 
International Finance could find no hearing in a situation where 
some Congressmen denounced overwhelming Nationalist expression 
of views in their mail as mere organized subversion. 

The shelves of our public libraries hold thousands of books per- 
taining to some aspect of this vast subject; m& of them dry as dost 
to the average reader and remaining unread by the public through 
the years . M ost of these scholarly works are-devoted to some passing 
phase of power politics in some part of the world, of which their 
author has made a specialized study, and have invariably been 
forgotten as the public has lost interest in that particular incident. 

In running through these works some amazing nuggets of informa- 
tion come to light here and there, which fitted together gradually 
unfold the stunning history and the legal structure of a sovereign 
world state located in the financial district of the loosely knit aggre- 
gation of buroughs and cities popularly known as the city of London. 
The colossal political and financial organization centered in this area, 
known as "The City," operates as a super-government of the world; 
and no incident occurs in any part of the world without its participa- 
tion in some form.